Why did the BEATLES shoot with Pentax ?

[Ian Grant]

That's not a finder, it's the external add on meter. I've got one on my SV

It's the early meter, my SV which I bought 18 months ago has the later version.

There is a simple answer to why the Beatles used Pentax cameras, they were given them by the Rank Organisation who were the Pentax distributors in the UK, also owners of T.T.&H (Cooke) lenses and other photographic companies, however their core business was J. Arthur Rank, the UK film production company, they also owned a cinema chain.

So the Beatles were given Pentax cameras when they made their film - A Hard Days Night - to promote the brand.

Paul McCartney's brother (Mike (McGear) is/was a photographer and travelled with the Beatles, working with their manager. Mike was also an excellent musician/comedian. Some years ago a group of us went to a Photography exhibition at the Tate Modern Gallery in Liverpool, nearby was a small gallery showing some of Mike McCarneys image of the Beatles, his work was superb.

Ian

 

[Beverly Hills]

Ah, yes. I never had a camera with an external meter like that, started with a Spotmatic (and an old Minolta TLR, with a handheld meter). It's actually a good look, nicely integrated and makes the gear look interesting.

What is the finder on that one in t739, George & Ringo on the airplane? I don't think I've ever seen that before.

Also, the answer I assume is "because Pentax paid for the marketing to have the Beatles use their cameras"

Have a look madsox

 

[Alan Gales]

It's the early meter, my SV which I bought 18 months ago has the later version.

There is a simple answer to why the Beatles used Pentax cameras, they were given them by the Rank Organisation who were the Pentax distributors in the UK, also owners of T.T.&H (Cooke) lenses and other photographic companies, however their core business was J. Arthur Rank, the UK film production company, they also owned a cinema chain.

So the Beatles were given Pentax cameras when they made their film - A Hard Days Night - to promote the brand.

Paul McCartney's brother (Mike (McGear) is/was a photographer and travelled with the Beatles, working with their manager. Mike was also an excellent musician/comedian. Some years ago a group of us went to a Photography exhibition at the Tate Modern Gallery in Liverpool, nearby was a small gallery showing some of Mike McCarneys image of the Beatles, his work was superb.

Ian

Also, Pentax was Fab!

 

[pentaxuser]

Once they had made Contax with the record companies, fired a Canon at the Rolling Stones and no longer wanted Nik on their shows they settled for Pentax

pentaxuser

 

[Beverly Hills]

Somewhere, probably here,there was an explanation that Ringo used the Pentax. I believe it was a gift. I’m pretty sure Paul and Linda used a Nikon.

I have a couple of Honeywell Pentaxes that still work well.

Indeed juan, in secrect moments, out of reach from Pentax
he did - later on....,,,

 

[snusmumriken]

Indeed juan, in secrect moments, out of reach from Pentax
he did - later on....,,,

These frozen moments can be deceptive. In the back of 'Snaps' by Elliott Erwitt, there is a photo of Erwitt with a Nikon on a tripod. Yet by his own description (and evidenced by his battered cameras) he has by choice been a Leica man all his life. Maybe in his case the Nikon was for paid work.

 

[BradS]

Ringo used Nikon too. Paul seems to have used many different cameras. Linda is almost always seen with Nikons and the occasional Polaroid.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the early to late 60s the Spotmatic was considered a professional grade camera, it was used by many News Photographers, PJ, and commercial photographers. The late model Spotmatic F came as a standard or motor drive bodies, large list of lens, all really good, with primes like the 120 and 150mm, good zooms for the day. It wasn't until the late 60s that Nikon really took over as the professional 35mm system camera later followed by Topcon, Canon, and Minolta. In the same period both Sammy Davis Jr. and Yul Brynner who were both avid photographers shot with Leica.

 

[Mackinaw]

..... In the same period both Sammy Davis Jr. and Yul Brynner who were both avid photographers shot with Leica.

Sammy shot with everything. There are pictures online when he visited the Canon factory in Japan in 1963. Shows him using a Canonflex and several different lenses.

Jim B.

 

[wiltw]

I imagine it's a case of product placement, but Pentax Spotmatic's were a sexy camera supported with some of the finest lenses. It was perhaps hanging onto the M42 screw mount for too long that eventually lost Pentax ground on Nikon etc. A good Spotmatic is still a nice camera to use.

The relative slowness of changing lenses due to screwmount, and the fact that metering was stopped-down aperture (vs. wide open aperture metering for so many other designs) probably both contributed to the issue. I do recall that Spotmatics were very comfortable to hold, and were pretty desirable at the time.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The relative slowness of changing lenses due to screwmount, and the fact that metering was stopped-down aperture (vs. wide open aperture metering for so many other designs) probably both contributed to the issue. I do recall that Spotmatics were very comfortable to hold, and were pretty desirable at the time.

Factures that moved Spotmatics out of its day in the Sun.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I remember pictures of photojournalists clamoring for pictures in the early 60's - lots of Pentaxes and Tele-Rolliflexen.

The Nikon F's leadership came out of Vietnam where it earned a reputation for being bullet proof (literally). Photographs of photojournalists with a half dozen Fs slung around their neck, each with a different lens, appeared in Life magazine. It helped that the F had a very distinctive look to it, especially with a Photomic finder. And so an image was born and even part-time photographers for small town newspapers clamored for an F.

There is a story (probably in Pop Photo) of freshly minted photojournalists newly in-country taking sand paper and brassing their new black F's made to make it look like they had already done a tour or two. Black became the finish of choice because it blended in and didn't provide a target.

National Geographic had a story of a journalist smuggling his Nikon Fs into Tibet. Red China had closed off all access to Tibet though local merchant caravans were allowed back and forth accross the border. The journalist was disguised as an Indian trader and entered Tibet on foot with a caravan, travelling across the Himalayas. The cameras were hidden submerged at the bottom of the caravan's water jugs. It seems the Nikons only needed a good shake and a spell in the sun to dry them off and bring them back to life. An advantage of titanium shutters and pure Himalayan melt water.

After all that Pentax didn't stand a chance with PJs..

Nikon got its first shot of credibility in the Korean war with their rangefinders: reliable, good lenses, made locally (well, across the Korea Strait) so accessories and lenses were easily available, and cheap at the PX.

 

[Beverly Hills]

I remember pictures of photojournalists clamoring for pictures in the early 60's - lots of Pentaxes and Tele-Rolliflexen.

The Nikon F's leadership came out of Vietnam

E X A C T L Y !!

 

[snusmumriken]

I can’t really see the point of a camera that stops bullets if it ends up that badly damaged.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can’t really see the point of a camera that stops bullets if it ends up that badly damaged.

That is a bit better though than stopping the bullet with ones own body. Frankly I would rather that the camera stop the bullet then my body doing the heavy lifting in this case.

 

[Beverly Hills]

I can’t really see the point of a camera that stops bullets if it ends up that

The Beatles didn't have to go to Vietnam either.!

With the exception of John, but his war was in the UK!

 

[snusmumriken]

That is a bit better though than stopping the bullet with ones own body. Frankly I would rather that the camera stop the bullet then my body doing the heavy lifting in this case.

Yeah but why not wear specially designed body armour and a smaller camera that is less likely to be hit? It seems silly to festoon Nikons around you for protection.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah but why not wear specially designed body armour and a smaller camera that is less likely to be hit? It seems silly to festoon Nikons around you for protection.

In that time period, body armor was not common nor very good. Definitely not near today's quality.

 

[BradS]

E X A C T L Y !!
View attachment 332950

It doesn't look like the first one stopped the bullet(s)....that's a pretty devastating exit wound.

 

[snusmumriken]

In that time period, body armor was not common nor very good. Definitely not near today's quality.

But to prefer one camera brand over another because it’s good at stopping bullets... Forgive me, I was told at school that I had an exaggerated sense of the ridiculous.

 

[Paul Howell]

Both the marines army field tested and issued early forms of body armor, an evolution the flack vest worn by gunners in WWII, hot, heavy and all that protective by modern standards. Having used Pentax, Nikon, and Konica if I had to choose a camera for possible ballistic protection, it would the Konica T.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Yeah but why not wear specially designed body armour and a smaller camera that is less likely to be hit? It seems silly to festoon Nikons around you for protection.

Er., I think a point has been missed.

Multiple cameras with different lenses on them hanging around one's neck had nothing to do with armour. It had to do with avoiding the time required to change lenses, where to put the lenses and how to keep the mud out of both. There was a camera with a 28mm lens, a camera with a 35mm lens, a camera with a 50mm lens, et sic porro.

I'm sure all the PJ's would much rather have had smaller lighter cameras and plate armour, but neither existed at the time.

Camera's weren't judged by bullet stopping ability. The publicity garnered by a picture of a Nikon with a bullet hole in it that was credited with saving a PJ's life in Nam had stay-at-home photojournalists wanting the same camera. Envy, jealousy, covetousness, posing - none of that has changed over millions of years.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Those early Pentax cameras caught on quickly due to both their ease of use and high degree of reliability at a very reasonable price. They were sorta a silver bullet SLR in that era. It's amazing the amount of mountaineering torture mine survived. Mine was an early H1 with an externally coupled Cds meter, prior to the Spotmatic versions.

Later I gave my nephew a next generation Pentax, a little Mx, for sake of his extreme climbing expeditions in the Arctic, Patagonia, Andes, Karakoram, and Cook Range. It held up superbly and needed no winterization. Lots of fancier cameras fail under such demanding conditions.

Nowadays, I personally own a Nikon FM2n, another fully manual camera with an excellent track record for reliability, even under bad conditions.

 

[snusmumriken]

Er., I think a point has been missed.

Multiple cameras with different lenses on them hanging around one's neck had nothing to do with armour. It had to do with avoiding the time required to change lenses, where to put the lenses and how to keep the mud out of both. There was a camera with a 28mm lens, a camera with a 35mm lens, a camera with a 50mm lens, et sic porro.

I'm sure all the PJ's would much rather have had smaller lighter cameras and plate armour.

Camera's weren't judged by bullet stopping ability. The publicity garnered by a picture of a Nikon with a bullet hole in it that was credited with saving a PJ's life in Nam had stay-at-home photojournalists wanting the same camera. Envy, jealousy, covetousness, posing - none of that has changed over millions of years.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But to prefer one camera brand over another because it’s good at stopping bullets... Forgive me, I was told at school that I had an exaggerated sense of the ridiculous.

Much better than a plastic camera. And yes you are being ridiculous.