Which camera to use for my M42 lenses?

[Cholentpot]

I'm going to put one in for the Spotmatic. I picked one up on here a Spotmatic II for a song. It is one of the most enjoyable cameras to use. I also have a Praktica which is a klunker compared to the Pentax. You can get any K mount camera and put an M42 adapter in. I've done it with a K1000 and others.

Stay away from the Soviet stuff though, it will only lead to tears and hardship.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I am just going to repeat a bit of advice I received on some forum years ago, which I found, to my dismay, to be completely accurate: The best camera to use for your selection of M42 lenses is a Contax 139Q with an adapter.
I have owned, over time, almost all the M42 Pentax bodies, 4 different Fujicas, MamiyaSekors, Yashica TL Electro X, a Praktica, everything mentioned here and a few others, everything except the Chinon.
I have a wide variety of M42 lenses from a wide variety of manufacturers. After moving to Contax 139s with cheap adapters, I’d never go back to any of the original M42 bodies, as they are all clunky to use in comparison. The Contax has a notably clearer viewfinder than any of them (which matters because even though you will be doing a version of stop down metering, the vf is so bright you can compose and meter and shoot with the lens stopped all the way down to f/8 and still see what you are doing), more accurate modern shutter, uses commonly available batteries, has a meter and a good one, is small and light, relatively cheap, easier to find in working-won’t-need-CLA condition, 1/1000 shutter speed, and on and on. I have owned a 139Q since the late 70’s and it has never needed anything in the way of repair or adjustment.
For someone just trying to figure out if they like using film, the last thing you want, to make that determination fairly, is a camera that gets in your way, you’d want a camera that just makes life easier for a beginner, and, frankly, easier and more predictable for an experienced photographer. I like museum pieces, and use cameras going all the way back to the Thirties, but the Spotmatics are going to feel like museum pieces in comparison, in use, and Spotmatics are probably the best of the breed.
Plus, if you find that you really enjoy film photography, you can eventually stick Contax Zeiss lenses on it as well.
Just a suggestion for a different approach to a common dilemma. Please don’t hate me.

This is really just an opinion, but stated as a hard fact. If one wanted to use M42 lenses on non M42 camera ,there are plenty of choices. I personally dislike these kind of concoctions likely because it reminds me of users who drove M42 lens prices high only to talk about their CA behavior on those non-film cameras and for hardly any other reason. Of course this is also just an opinion. I'm an old fashioned bloke who likes things as they were meant to be.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

This is really just an opinion, but stated as a hard fact. If one wanted to use M42 lenses on non M42 camera ,there are plenty of choices. I personally dislike these kind of concoctions likely because it reminds me of users who drove M42 lens prices high only to talk about their CA behavior on those non-film cameras and for hardly any other reason. Of course this is also just an opinion. I'm an old fashioned bloke who likes things as they were meant to be.

Well, okay, it's a hard fact that it is my opinion based on using the cameras mentioned, over long periods of time. It was intended as a suggestion, based on that experience, nothing more. But, at least it is an opinion based on experience. If someone else bought a 139Q and used it for a significant amount of time with M42 lenses, and ended up with a different opinion, that opinion would be just as valid as mine, for them.
Ivor Trefenbruin once said that if you haven't owned a Linn turntable, then you don't have an opinion on Linn turntables.
Similarly until one uses M42 lenses on their own 139Q body (chosen because cheap and small) for a while, they don't have an opinion on how well it works, all they have is a conjecture, a guess, an idea based on nothing more than a personal predisposition and zero actual knowledge.

The OP asked a question, all I was offering was a suggestion for an answer which opened the field a little bit, with reasons why one might want to consider it. The statement in my post: "The best camera for M42 lenses is a Contax 139Q." was something I was quoting from someone else, as I noted. That's a statement of hard fact, but it wasn't mine, though it was enough to get my attention at the time and I assumed it was a bit tongue in cheek. It led me to the best decision I ever made about using my collection of M42 lenses. All I was trying to do was to expand on that idea, with observations I later learned on my own.
I understand the appeal of using period bodies with period lenses, but it's not the only way, and not necessarily the best way for a given photographer, all things considered.
If one wants to keep using what they've been using for 50 years because they are happy with it, that's fine too. I won't consider owning a car without a stick, so I get it.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Well, okay, it's a hard fact that it is my opinion based on using the cameras mentioned, over long periods of time. It was intended as a suggestion, based on that experience, nothing more. But, at least it is an opinion based on experience. If someone else bought a 139Q and used it for a significant amount of time with M42 lenses, and ended up with a different opinion, that opinion would be just as valid as mine, for them.
Ivor Trefenbruin once said that if you haven't owned a Linn turntable, then you don't have an opinion on Linn turntables.
Similarly until one uses M42 lenses on their own 139Q body (chosen because cheap and small) for a while, they don't have an opinion on how well it works, all they have is a conjecture, a guess, an idea based on nothing more than a personal predisposition and zero actual knowledge.

The OP asked a question, all I was offering was a suggestion for an answer which opened the field a little bit, with reasons why one might want to consider it. The statement in my post: "The best camera for M42 lenses is a Contax 139Q." was something I was quoting from someone else, as I noted. That's a statement of hard fact, but it wasn't mine, though it was enough to get my attention at the time and I assumed it was a bit tongue in cheek. It led me to the best decision I ever made about using my collection of M42 lenses. All I was trying to do was to expand on that idea, with observations I later learned on my own.
I understand the appeal of using period bodies with period lenses, but it's not the only way, and not necessarily the best way for a given photographer, all things considered.
If one wants to keep using what they've been using for 50 years because they are happy with it, that's fine too. I won't consider owning a car without a stick, so I get it.

All I alluded to was your "the best camera for M42 ..." and it is far from being so. What is BEST for anything anyways? If it is for you fine, and I'm not going to argue who used more different cameras, no point to that. I don't even like 139Q (and as such I used it only very shortly), let alone recommend for its unintended use. And there are lots of M42 cameras that work on modern batteries BTW, if one is needed that is. But I suppose we agree, we give advice based on own experiences and beliefs, so the OP can make an educated decision.

 

[narsuitus]

In addition to the Fuji and Pentax screw-mount bodies that I use with my M42 lenses, I also use a Sears 500MX.

The Sears 500 MX in this photo was given to me with a beat up 50mm screw-mount Sears lens. I scrapped the Sears lens and mount an extra 50mm f/1.4 Fujinon lens that I was not using.


Screw-Mounts by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[markjwyatt]

I'm going to put one in for the Spotmatic. I picked one up on here a Spotmatic II for a song. It is one of the most enjoyable cameras to use. I also have a Praktica which is a klunker compared to the Pentax...

Not sure what Praktica you are using, but either my MTL5 or LTL3 feel better shooting to me than my Spotmatics. They are lighter, and have a vertical traveling metal shutter. The Spotmatics are fine also, but I have a few and none have a working meter (not a big deal to me, but in some cases such as adapting non-M42 lenses to them, I need the meter).

 

[barzune]

I've been using M42 lenses since my first Zenit in the mid-60s, and have never been disappointed in the Pentax branded ones. My cameras are Asahi Pentax SP II, and Practika MTL5.
The pair are always in the car and, hot weather or cold, I've never been disappointed, in more than 30 years.

 

[Cholentpot]

Not sure what Praktica you are using, but either my MTL5 or LTL3 feel better shooting to me than my Spotmatics. They are lighter, and have a vertical traveling metal shutter. The Spotmatics are fine also, but I have a few and none have a working meter (not a big deal to me, but in some cases such as adapting non-M42 lenses to them, I need the meter).

I've got the MTL3.

It's ok, but a little more chunky feeling than the SPII. The SPII feels smooth, almost on par with my F3.

As for light meters, it's nice when they work but I can get by without them.

 

[John Koehrer]

One of the OP's desires was modern batteries. The spots used RM400 cells that aren't made any more. Weincell I believe makes a replacement
Spot F may have used PX13/PX625 but that's just a faded memory today.
K1000 uses modern cells and take M42 lenses with an adapter but another faded memory about the operation in stop down.

 

[Cholentpot]

One of the OP's desires was modern batteries. The spots used RM400 cells that aren't made any more. Weincell I believe makes a replacement
Spot F may have used PX13/PX625 but that's just a faded memory today.
K1000 uses modern cells and take M42 lenses with an adapter but another faded memory about the operation in stop down.

Spotmatic II can use modern available batteries.

 

[Crantz]

I thought all Spotmatics have a bridge circuit so I could use modern batteries as long as they fit physically. Is this now true for all or are there exeptions like with the earlier models?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I thought all Spotmatics have a bridge circuit so I could use modern batteries as long as they fit physically. Is this now true for all or are there exeptions like with the earlier models?

They do.

Just one more in for Praktica chunkiness. Spotmatic runs like a smooth Ferrari next to any Praktica. Praktica's are fine enough cameras and fun in their own way, but let's be honest, while its shutter is robust, works fine, and sounds like a marching band auditioning before going public, Spotmatic gives back enjoyable music without a jury trial.

 

[markjwyatt]

They do.

Just one more in for Praktica chunkiness. Spotmatic runs like a smooth Ferrari next to any Praktica. Praktica's are fine enough cameras and fun in their own way, but let's be honest, while its shutter is robust, works fine, and sounds like a marching band auditioning before going public, Spotmatic gives back enjoyable music without a jury trial.

I must admit I never actually compared directly. I just grabbed two Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SPs, and two Prakticas (MTL5 and LTL3).

The Prakticas are a little louder, I agree. Both were pretty smooth, but the Pentax had close to 180 degree wind while the Prakticas are more like 105-120 degrees. The Pentax was definitely smoother because the Praktica has some cam action (I suspect) that you feel as you wind, but it is nice confident and really quick winding feel that I like. I really like both (Spotmatic and Praktica), but use the Prakticas MTL5 preferentially because the meter works (none of my Spotmatic meters work) and some of the other reasons I state here. The Prakticas feel a little lighter (though it is not a huge difference). I like the angled shutter release on the front of the camera. I feel it is more stable to shoot that way as opposed to pushing the camera down from the top. I like the idea of the vertical travelling metal shutter; though I must admit it has little effect in everyday shooting (other than flash photography where the vertical shutter gets you 1/125th sec sync).

As for the Prakticas, the MTL5 is not as precise as the LTL3 in terms of frame spacing (this is a known issue with the MTL5). Qualitatively, I like the feel of the LTL3 a little bit more than the MTL5 (cannot be precise why, better build quality at that time). The LTLs did require a mercury battery, while the MTLs can use available batteries. So there is some balancing to be done. My LTL3 has a small light leak, and I do not think the meter works, so that moves the balance to the MTL5.

 

[GRHazelton]

I believe the LTL uses a bridge circuit in its meter, as do the Spotmatics as noted above. So the LTL can use a silver oxide cell.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I believe the LTL uses a bridge circuit in its meter, as do the Spotmatics as noted above. So the LTL can use a silver oxide cell.

It's just the matter of getting a different shape adapted to the battery compartment

 

[Paul Howell]

I have both Spotmatics and Chinon CE 3 and 4, what Chinon brings is a better meter, the CE 3 can meter down to 4 seconds, flash sync is a tad higher at 1/100.

 

[markjwyatt]

I believe the LTL uses a bridge circuit in its meter, as do the Spotmatics as noted above. So the LTL can use a silver oxide cell.

@Witold

I was thinking that was so, but was not sure. Thanks.

 

[John51]

As it's going to be a tester camera to see if you like using film, my suggestion is a Praktica MTL5.

As already stated, it's on the the clumsy side. Anything but a Zenit is nicer to use imo. Upside is that a cheap MTL5 from that auction site is likely to have had less film put through it than say a Spotmatic. It's a good bet for a cheap and working M42 body.

I wouldn't worry about the meter. Many cameras that age will have inaccurate meters. Emulsions now have so much latitude to over exposure that Sunny 11 is adequate. (Film is rated one stop lower than box speed.)

 

[AgX]

As for the Prakticas, the MTL5 is not as precise as the LTL3 in terms of frame spacing (this is a known issue with the MTL5).

They are mechanically the same in design. And I do not not know of an upgrade in implementation.

 

[abruzzi]

@Witold

I was thinking that was so, but was not sure. Thanks.

These things are what I use on most of my PX625 mercury cell cameras that have been adapted to 1.5v. Some people just use an o-ring to center the LR44 cell, but these are a little nicer:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2-pcs-copp...a-Exposure-Meter-MR-9-PX625-PX13/272479700016

 

[markjwyatt]

They are mechanically the same in design. And I do not not know of an upgrade in implementation.

I was talking specifically about mine, but i have heard this generally also. It is usually attributed to loss of quality control in later years.

 

[GRHazelton]

As it's going to be a tester camera to see if you like using film, my suggestion is a Praktica MTL5.

As already stated, it's on the the clumsy side. Anything but a Zenit is nicer to use imo. Upside is that a cheap MTL5 from that auction site is likely to have had less film put through it than say a Spotmatic. It's a good bet for a cheap and working M42 body.

I wouldn't worry about the meter. Many cameras that age will have inaccurate meters. Emulsions now have so much latitude to over exposure that Sunny 11 is adequate. (Film is rated one stop lower than box speed.)

On the clumsy side....I've never used a Zenit, but I found my LTL anything but clumsy. As I stated earlier, it has the best implementation of stop down metering I've encountered, including the Spotmatics. (The Spotmatic F is full aperture metering, with the dedicated lenses, and very nice it is!) The LTL's spring-loaded meter/stopdown key is just above the front panel mounted, angled shutter release; I used my index finger to meter; it was a fraction of an inch to fire the shutter. MUCH better than a slide on the camera body far from the shutter. The LTL also has a simply excellent film load system, even better than Pentax's Magic Needles. I shot and processed hundreds of cassettes through my LTL and never encountered any frame spacing problems; these cassettes included dozens of Ektachrome, which I also processed and mounted. My LTL was/is tough; i bounced it off a sidewalk taking a chunk off the bottom plate. Still worked fine. While the Spotties have far better fit and finish, considered as a rugged, functional tool the LTL does the job. I saw one in a local shop recently in very nice condition, f1.8 lens, working, fpr about $40.00. I should have bought it!

 

[focus_on_infinity]

I just got a Spotmatic II specifically to use with a Zeiss 58mm f/2. I just love this combination.

I never considered this before, but automatic diaphragm is totally overrated. There's no guessing about depth of field. Sure, there's always been the preview button. But on a totally manual lens, everything is right there in the viewfinder. You can just twist it, and nail exactly what you want.

 

[AgX]

The Automatic Diaphragm is benefitial/necessary if one needs a large aperture to focus and then has to release stopped-down immediately.

 

[GRHazelton]

I just got a Spotmatic II specifically to use with a Zeiss 58mm f/2. I just love this combination.

I never considered this before, but automatic diaphragm is totally overrated. There's no guessing about depth of field. Sure, there's always been the preview button. But on a totally manual lens, everything is right there in the viewfinder. You can just twist it, and nail exactly what you want.

A bit slow for any sort of action shots, wouldn't you say? I have a lovely AsahiFlex IIa. A beautiful little camera, much like a 39mm Leica with a waist level finder added. Fit and finish are exemplary. 37mm lens mount, lenses are all preset, which is one step above totally manual. Action shots are a crap shoot, since using the waist level finder for a moving subject is difficult, to say the least! The IIa does have a Galilean finder for 50 mm lenses, which helps a bit. Still, while I treasure this little gem - my Father used one for years for nature photography, I have it and the 50mm f3.5, the 83mm f1.9, and a third party 35mm f2.8, - I'd never choose one for my primary shooter, even if it had a 42mm lens mount. Rumor has it that a few AsahiFlexes were made with a 42mm lens mount. Truly a holy grail for Pentax aficionados!