SPOTMATIC: Happy 50th Anniversary

[PentaxBronica]

Might this have been Ringo's camera in a "Hard Days Night"?

I have a feeling that they were handed a black SV each. A canny piece of product placement that 2010s Pentax seem unable to match!

 

[Steve Roberts]

sound of the shutter of the SP is something special, and I prefer its advance lever to the later Pentax Ks.

I know what you mean. The Spotmatic advance lever is better when the camera's in use and sticks out enough for the thumb to find it readily. However, when a Spotmatic (or anything from that range) is hanging around my neck I get driven up the wall each time that advance lever snags in the front of my button-up shirts. Not a problem in winter when the woolly jumpers are out or for tee shirt wearers, of course. The K range advance lever sits flush with the body, doesn't snag, but also doesn't fall so readily to hand. (This is serious - with such minutiae I'm even thinking how sad I am before anyone else says so!)
Steve

 

[Roger Cole]

Yeah, through all this Spotmatic worship (self-imposed and from the APUG outer-crowd) I have to say this: In 1966, when I was 16, I got my first REAL camera. I was not about to dither with UNprofessional 35mm, so I got a Minolta Autocord CDS, brand new, for $120, at the discounter CALDOR (remember them?). I enjoyed it for years, never, ever thinking about the 'inferior' format, 35mm. (You see, at 16 I was very smart.)

In 1978 I FINALLY tried 35mm, with a new Canon AE-1. From that point onward, my work has largely (but not always) improved. The Autocord was certainly 'up to it' with a razor-sharp lens, but, you see, for pragmatic reasons, it is somewhat impractical with oftentimes not being able to hand-hold the larger camera, due to necessarily slower shutter speeds. I was often frustrated with not being able to capture images in low light, and, with Tri-X being decidedly grainy during that era (the sixties), I HAD to use it to photograph even moderately lit scenes, handheld. I 'progressed' to the Mamiya TLR system (at least I had optical choices) but, again, in 1978 I finally graduated to 35mm and never left it since. 35mm does, at least to me, seem to be the 'ideal' compromise in photography. I would have opted for a format of 32 X 24 (as Nikon wanted in the immediate post-war years, but, instead, had to yield to the Great Yellow Father, Kodak.)

Certainly medium format has its rightful place: but that 'place' is usually upon a pedestal called a tripod. And, I could never figure out why fast film would be used in a 120 size camera, as the use of a slower film in a 35mm would equate the two formats (and the use of such slower film would be feasible, given the almost 2 stop advantage from the 35mm's shorter focal length lenses). - David Lyga

Humm...very different reasoning. I've found since getting medium format cameras that I have all but given up shooting 35mm black and white, the exception being very low light, and with the availability of Delta 3200 in 120 even that will probably stop when I get an 80/1.9 for my M645 Pro. I can handhold my Yashicamat 124 at slower speeds than any of my 35mm cameras due to the geometry and waist level finder, the camera generates far less vibration due to lack of the slapping mirror, and the negative will be enlarged a lot less anyway.

I use fast film in a 120 camera for the same reason I do in 35mm - to suit the light. It is, if anything, a BETTER selection in medium format because it won't be enlarged nearly as much. The light (and lens speed, which is CLOSE with my M.F. cameras if not quite there) dictates the film. That being dictated by the lighting conditions, if I have to use fast film I want the largest negative I can get.

Other than those low light cases I shoot 35mm mainly for slides for projection and that will decrease when I finally run out of frozen Provia 400X, unless Ferrania has a 400 slide film by then. Even color neg I shoot mostly in 120 now. However, I started with 35mm and stayed with it for years because it was all I could afford, or all I thought I could afford. Getting back into photography with a more successful career but still before digital (mid 90s) I went to 4x5, which I had always wanted to do, because it was, paradoxically, cheaper to do so than medium format which was still very expensive. (And 4x5 mostly DOES belong on a tripod. Oh you can shoot press cameras and a few specialized 4x5s hand held - can't wait to get my Travelwide - but it's mainly a tripod format.) Another hiatus ensued and I returned to photography yet again after digital had tanked prices for used gear AND with more professional success and I could finally shoot most any format (exception being 5x7 or 8x10 and the reason I haven't done those is really the difficulty in optically enlarging them) and if I had to stick to just one it would be M.F., though hopefully more than one medium format!

All that said, I like Pentax. I started with an M42 Ricoh Singlex TLS and got a k mount camera later. Getting back into photography I already had a couple of good k mount lenses so I stayed with it and acquired an LX and MX. (And a replacement for that old Singlex, the original having been long sold off, just because it was my first camera and I wanted another, though it's heavy and sets some kind of record for dimmest viewfinder on an SLR.) A nice Spotmatic system is something I certainly wouldn't mind picking up some day.

 

[cuthbert]

Already in 1959 an employee at Ihagee proposed to install TTL-metering at the Exakta Varex. The proposal was dismissed...

I think in 1959 Pentax had the prototype of the Spotmatic almost ready, it was presented in 1960 if I remember correctly at Photo kina and at that time it really had a spot lightmeter that was finally dropped in favour of an average one.

This was the prototype of the Spot-matic (spot lightmeter + automatic lens I assume)....in 1959 the Germans were already too late!!!

I completely understand!

Many years ago, I was going to get a Leica M2 or M3 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens. However, I began using a Spotmatic with an 8-element 50mm f/1.4 lens that performed so well that I never purchased the Leica.

By the way, I am a current Nikon F2 and F4 user and a former Nikon F, F3, and EM user who still prefers the 8-element 50mm f/1.4 Takumar lens to the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor lens.

https://flic.kr/p/93ks5X

https://flic.kr/p/93kvne

My current setup is a F2AS with a Nikkor 50 mm f1.4 S-C factory AI'd and a Canon F-1N with FD 50 mm f1.2, while they are both very capable cameras they are overkill to walk around for eight hours, my Spotmatic F has the last Takumar 50 mm f1.4 and I'm very satisfied, on my SP1000 I use another late 55mm f2.0 and I've a spare Tak 55mm f1.8, although I don't have the legendary 8 element 1.4 I am very satisfied by the Tak lenses I have, as I am satisfied of my K mounted lenses...they are the same as the Taks but in a different package, while the small M lenses I have (40-80 zoom, 50 mm f1.7 and 28 mm f2.8) don't impress me at all.

 

[David Lyga]

Roger Cole: one could disagree with me, and with complete legitimacy, if one usually took pictures with the camera on a steady support. However, I cannot understand using fast film with medium format if you could get the same results with 35mm and, say, TMX 100, or Pan F+. You really could.

For my purposes, hand holding 'demands' 35mm for best results with most situations. But I also was really stunned with the high quality available using slow 35mm film and a tripod, although, of course, using slow film in medium format with the camera on a tripod would beat 35mm easily (but, unless enlarged greatly, not necessarily noticeably). - David Lyga

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Did you do a clean and lube on the mechanism. I've come up with a small pile of Pentaxes lately, but most have the common issue of the mirror hanging once in a while (or more). This seems to be related to the mechanics on the side of the mirror box, but I haven't been in there yet. I did obtain a Nat Cam manual for the Spotmatic and hope to learn to deal with them more thoroughly this winter, but am not sure I've really got the aptitude. I like to do basic repairs, but don't usually go that deep. I think I have eight screw mount Pentaxes now with only two fully working. Of course, that is plenty, so not much pressure to fix more. I do have a nice H1 (IIRC) "Store Demonstrator" in black enamel that I'd particularly like to get up and running.

I did "fix" a very heavily used black MX that was abandoned as junk. It had laid for years with no lens, and I though maybe had a torn shutter curtain. I don't know why I even pulled the bottom off, but it immediately started working; there was a small dent in the baseplate that had locked it up. Not even much crud since the mirror was up the whole time sealing off the mirror and screen.

I did a strip-clean-reassemble and lube on the mirror box, I cheated and just lubed the shutter mechanism - which was working perfectly from the get-go.

 

[cliveh]

using slow film in medium format with the camera on a tripod would beat 35mm easily (but, unless enlarged greatly, not necessarily noticeably). - David Lyga

But not in flexibility of immediate use for angle and composition.

 

[blockend]

For my purposes, hand holding 'demands' 35mm for best results with most situations. But I also was really stunned with the high quality available using slow 35mm film and a tripod, although, of course, using slow film in medium format with the camera on a tripod would beat 35mm easily (but, unless enlarged greatly, not necessarily noticeably). - David Lyga

A compromise I often use is a 120 folding camera, which easily fits into a pocket. Pre-focusing requires fast film for sufficient depth of field, but the image quality is still some way in advance of 35mm. Even with a red window frame counter and the necessity to cock the shutter manually, operation becomes instinctive and I've used one for street photography without any problems.

The downside is cost of film if you're too shutter happy.

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't understand the argument at all. I could get results with slow film, 35mm, and a tripod, assuming the subject isn't moving, to equal results I could get with hand held medium format and fast film?? Maybe I don't have a tripod with me as I didn't wish to carry it or maybe the subject is moving.

I've had ample time to use all my systems now and for my money if I had to use only one combo it would be either my M645 system or Yasichamat - the former for versatility and the latter for light weight - and one of today's excellent 400 speed films.

I have pretty much zero use for slow 35mm B&W film. I know what I like and works for me but of course YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger Cole: one could disagree with me, and with complete legitimacy, if one usually took pictures with the camera on a steady support. However, I cannot understand using fast film with medium format if you could get the same results with 35mm and, say, TMX 100, or Pan F+. You really could.

No, I COULDN'T. Because I don't have a tripod, or the subject is moving. I'm going to need 400 film, say, or maybe more, because I don't have a tripod or the subject is moving. What's so hard to understand about that?

And for that matter (yes I've done the "landscapes with slow film in 35mm from a tripod" thing) the larger negatives are much, much easier to print well. I'm not saying I can't make a good 16x20 from an excellent TMX or Pan F+ 35mm negative shot off a tripod. I'm sure I could. But it's a lot easier to do it from a 6x6 or 6x4.5 negative. Easier still from a 4x5 and if I didn't have 4x5 I'd get an RZ67, but I agree that's primarily a tripod camera.

 

[Roger Cole]

And sorry for the diversion, I just didn't understand the original point - still don't, but that's ok, and part of why there were so many film formats and different people shoot everything from 8mm stills to ULF. And I'd still like to have a nice Spotmatic some day.

 

[blockend]

the larger negatives are much, much easier to print well.

You nailed it. 35mm negatives are damned difficult to print well at any serious magnification. It can be done - look at an exhibition by the great street photographers if anyone's in doubt - but it's a real skill at 15 x 10" or bigger. Those guys also used fast film pushed even faster, generally speaking, which gave high contrast and solid grain to compensate for lack of pearly greys and give the eye something to hook onto.

In the days I only owned a 35mm camera I did a lot of architectural photography. With Agfapan 25, or Kodak 32 ASA and a tripod I could get a beautiful image with good light if I printed small on Grade 0 or 1, in fact one pro thought I'd contacted printed 5 x 7 negatives for a book, but blow it up big enough for the grain to intrude, and slow 35mm is hard work and neither fish nor foul aesthetically. Medium format doesn't suffer from the same issues, and if you're prepared to print a foot square or less, it's essentially grain free if properly exposed and developed.

For that reason I stick to shooting fast black and white only on 35mm. YMMV.

 

[David Lyga]

With '35' you learn early on that precision and cleanliness are requisites. There cannot be enough said about that, blockend, but once you become 'acculturated and habituated' to that obsession, printing large really is rather straightforward. The 'luxury' of a larger format is often unnecessarily wasted. - David Lyga

 

[John Koehrer]

Pentax the Leica killer? Which one still makes a film camera?

32X24mm was a Nikon twitch. Any other 35 used 24X36 and Kodak had nothing to do with Nikons change.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

You nailed it. 35mm negatives are damned difficult to print well at any serious magnification. It can be done - look at an exhibition by the great street photographers if anyone's in doubt - but it's a real skill at 15 x 10" or bigger. Those guys also used fast film pushed even faster, generally speaking, which gave high contrast and solid grain to compensate for lack of pearly greys and give the eye something to hook onto.In the days I only owned a 35mm camera I did a lot of architectural photography. With Agfapan 25, or Kodak 32 ASA and a tripod I could get a beautiful image with good light if I printed small on Grade 0 or 1, in fact one pro thought I'd contacted printed 5 x 7 negatives for a book, but blow it up big enough for the grain to intrude, and slow 35mm is hard work and neither fish nor foul aesthetically. Medium format doesn't suffer from the same issues, and if you're prepared to print a foot square or less, it's essentially grain free if properly exposed and developed.

For that reason I stick to shooting fast black and white only on 35mm. YMMV.

That's my experience too. As you enlarge the negative, you lose the tonal gradation and 8x12 is about as big as I really like. You can preserve fine detail at larger sizes, but the nice gradation goes away and your point about crisp grain is well made. An 8x12 matted say 12x16 or 16x20 can be impressive.

 

[cliveh]

Pentax the Leica killer? Which one still makes a film camera?

32X24mm was a Nikon twitch. Any other 35 used 24X36 and Kodak had nothing to do with Nikons change.

https://fstoppers.com/film/leica-lo...-fully-mechanical-35mm-film-rangefinder-37486

 

[cuthbert]

Pentax the Leica killer? Which one still makes a film camera?

32X24mm was a Nikon twitch. Any other 35 used 24X36 and Kodak had nothing to do with Nikons change.

Leica?Ah, the company that used to be top name in the market and now it's just a luxury brand...from the 60s I assume, when it became clear they couldn't design a proper slr.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2413964#post2413964

 

[cuthbert]

https://fstoppers.com/film/leica-lo...-fully-mechanical-35mm-film-rangefinder-37486

Mmm..looks like there's another toy for the Leica man:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm

I return to shoot with my humble Spotties, they never failed me.

 

[John Koehrer]

Leica?Ah, the company that used to be top name in the market and now it's just a luxury brand...from the 60s I assume, when it became clear they couldn't design a proper slr.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2413964#post2413964

That's just sour grapes. Yeah it's getting what you pay for. LOL

SLR or not, Which one still makes a film camera?

Prototype:1914
O-Series: hand built, 1923 & 1924
1st production: 1925
Still going: 2014. The Energizer Bunny of the camera world!

Go buy a Koenigsegg. Now that's luxury.

 

[cuthbert]

That's just sour grapes. Yeah it's getting what you pay for. LOL

SLR or not, Which one still makes a film camera?

Prototype:1914
O-Series: hand built, 1923 & 1924
1st production: 1925
Still going: 2014. The Energizer Bunny of the camera world!

Go buy a Koenigsegg. Now that's luxury.

Ridiculous statement since I'm a Leica owner (evidently you failed to read that I own a IIIb, a M3, a M5 and a M4P, all excellent cameras that were among the best of their era) and I know the importance of what Leitz achieved from the 20s to the 60s...the facts are that after the 60s Leica has become irrelevant in the photography world, their last attempt to cope with the Japanese competition was the remarkable M5, after that model they just played on the nostalgia factor and luxury image.

However this thread celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Spottie, so I would suggest to refrain posting adverts of fashion stuff, we are talking about a camera that made history, not luxury brands.

 

[georg16nik]

....However this thread celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Spottie, so I would suggest to refrain posting adverts of fashion stuff, we are talking about a camera that made history, not luxury brands.

“Pentax” was originally a ZEISS registered trademark (“Pentaprism” + “Contax”); post WWII, Zeiss, Leitz and the rest were struggling to re-establish itself in Germany and as all Germans patents were annulled with the country's defeat... - surprise-surprise -... the name "Pentax" was “taken” by the Asahi Optical company...

....the facts are that after the 60s Leica has become irrelevant in the photography world, their last attempt to cope with the Japanese competition was the remarkable M5, after that model they just played on the nostalgia factor and luxury image.....

After WWII, U.S. GA MacArthur stunt in Japan “cleared” the way for Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Oly etc. etc.

 

[PentaxBronica]

And that has what to do with the topic?

Leica fell behind because they couldn't or wouldn't service the mass market. Pentax realised that there was more money to be made in getting reliable cameras which were simple to use into the hands of as many people as possible.

 

[georg16nik]

And that has what to do with the topic?

Leica fell behind because they couldn't or wouldn't service the mass market. Pentax realised that there was more money to be made in getting reliable cameras which were simple to use into the hands of as many people as possible.

Yes, Leica fell behind so bad that they are still making film cameras as they did 100 years ago.
In the 60's Pentax woke up as innovator....
They say its easy to be innovative, when you have free access to others people know-how.

 

[John Koehrer]

Mr cuthbert.
From day one, Leica has been a luxury brand and never a system camera like Nikon, Canon and even Pentax. Apparently that was never their targeted market.

Back to your original statement about Spotmatic being a "Leica killer". You haven't responded.
So, reverting to my twelve year old measure of maturity I say "Bronx cheer/Raspberries".

Have a day.

 

[cuthbert]

“Pentax” was originally a ZEISS registered trademark (“Pentaprism” + “Contax”); post WWII, Zeiss, Leitz and the rest were struggling to re-establish itself in Germany and as all Germans patents were annulled with the country's defeat... - surprise-surprise -... the name "Pentax" was “taken” by the Asahi Optical company...



After WWII, U.S. GA MacArthur stunt in Japan “cleared” the way for Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Oly etc. etc.

The war is over. And you are a bad loser, if I might add.

And that has what to do with the topic?

Leica fell behind because they couldn't or wouldn't service the mass market. Pentax realised that there was more money to be made in getting reliable cameras which were simple to use into the hands of as many people as possible.

Mmm nothing I would say, just some crazy Leica fanboys are trying to derail the thread with ridicoulus statements liek "in the 60s Pentax woke up as an innovator", or "evil Japanese stole the Pentax name" and bla bla bla...regarding your statement, I agree, but that was Barnack's original idea: small, simple, reliable.

Mr cuthbert.
From day one, Leica has been a luxury brand and never a system camera like Nikon, Canon and even Pentax. Apparently that was never their targeted market.

Back to your original statement about Spotmatic being a "Leica killer". You haven't responded.
So, reverting to my twelve year old measure of maturity I say "Bronx cheer/Raspberries".

Have a day.

Yes I noticed that the maturity of the average Leica fanboy is about that age, thanks to confirm it!