séamuis
Established
every camera manufacturer has had QC issues. even Leica. The spotmatic never had any issue that were outstanding or somehow beyond acceptable. it just may seem so, because so many were made. several million of them if I’m not mistaken. the sheer number manufactured will magnify any issues. there were to my knowledge, (if you have evidence to the contrary please share) no serious QC issues of any kind beyond basic things that typically affect mass manufacture whee yu can’t check every single unit made, have ever been known with the spotmatic. Ive been using Pentax SLRs for years and from my knowledge of the design and engineering of pre-spotmatics and spotmatics, are that all cameras pre-spotmatic are actually by design mor prone to issues (most commonly stuck mirrors and shutter capping) despite being mostly hand assembled, adjusted and tested before leaving the factory.
the spotmatic is a more robust, and harder wearing camera than anything they ever made before or after, no doubt about it.
as for reputation, I don’t believe they ever suffered reputation issues until about the mid 80’s, but I suppose thats more opinion than anything else. during the years of the spotmatic, Asahi Optical outsold everyone, including canon and nikon. I can’t imagine how that equates to negative reputation issues, but I’m more than welcoming to being enlightened.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
The 1959 Auto-Takumar 55/2 with the chrome front pre-set is currently my favorite fifty. It's mostly the same as a Super-Tak, (sharp wide open) but it's smaller with 46mm filter ring and has 10 aperture blades, for the buttery blur.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I went through this loop before, with Pentax themselves, many years ago. You are no doubt right that the sheer numbers made magnified the problem, but in response to Pentax's complaints I did actually gather letters from repairers and dealers to show that I wasn't making it up. Admittedly Pentax were a lot less reasonable than you're being, and more or less said, "Our cameras never fail", which was patently nonsense.
There's also the "cull" or "evolutionary" argument of absent evidence, which says that the cameras that have survived to this day were, by definition, the ones that didn't break. You're almost certainly right that the Spotmatic was more robust in design than the earlier cameras, because they'd be fools not to make them so for mass production: most mass produced items have fewer QC problems than things that are hand assembled.
On the other hand, there is the undeniable truth that later Pentaxes never enjoyed the same reputation as the early ones, especially the SV. Did they just become too common and too cheap? How did Canon overtake them? It is a puzzle.
Cheers,
R.
freecom2
Established
Do you have any more information on this? Pentax K/M42 to Nikon seems to one of the poorest documented lens to camera combinations on the internet - with most just saying that adapters with no correction are good for very short distances, and with corrective elements are generally of poor quality.
séamuis
Established
I love this lens as well. ive had several of them. the cocking lever though often has issues, at least ive had issues with them. I think it renders better though than all the 55’s that were made after. and you can’t beat that tiny design. I love to show this and a few of the other auto-takumars when some of the snobbier rangefinder guys say SLR lenses are too big.
séamuis
Established
my personal belief is that they didn’t get ‘cheap’ (thats certainly an opinionated description) until near the end of the m42 life span (at the introduction of the Kmount) when the current model spotmatic was the ESII. but thats only from a relative viewpoint id think, because Pentax enjoyed great success in the 70s and early 80s. K1000, MX, ME Super, SuperA, LX, etc. but in terms of the spotmatic specifically, I don’t believe there was any significant falloff in quality until the las of the era (mid 70s). but this is only concerning the spotmatic and m42 cameras, and its only opinion, no matter how well researched. ( I wasn’t alive at the time, so I don’t underestimate your first hand experience)
as for reputation and loss of ground to competitors, there are a lot of opinions of that. the most common is that canon and nikon (especially canon) lobbied very heavy to the fast growing sports photographer segment and pushed their brand(s) as being ‘pro’ in a way they Pentax did not, and never had before or since. the idea of ‘pro’ in label has appeal, even if its not necessary the best tool out there for the working pro. I do believe advertising more than anything else was the biggest contributing factor. but the reality is that Asahi Opt. never at an point designed or built cameras for the ‘pro’ market in any capacity. they in fact only ever made one openly ‘pro’ camera. the LX. they had always been focused on the general user. their japanese commercials from the 60s show this ideology very well. they made cameras that could go toe to toe with the pros, but they never made cameras ‘for the pros’. in the 50s and 60s there was no such thing as a ‘pro’ camera. there was only high quality (Leica, Asahi Opt., Alpa, etc.) and cheaper quality. say something like a Petri, for comparison. in that era, a standout camera like the Spotmatic could stand on its own two legs so to speak and be considered ‘pro’ by virtue of its actual use by professional photographers, much like the venerable leica M3 and M2’s of the same era. by the mid 70s though the concept of a ‘pro’ camera existed and that pretty much changed the entire business, to this day.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I have the 28/3.5 ,50/1.4 and 150/4.
The 150 had an additional serial number engraved on it .
Google is your friend.
Came up as part of a shipment from a Florida clearing house for ex US army stock.
The 150 had an additional serial number engraved on it .
Google is your friend.
Came up as part of a shipment from a Florida clearing house for ex US army stock.
FrankS
Registered User
I have one of these adapters, M42 to Nikon F, and my Pentax screw lenses operate in stop down metering mode and do not focus out to infinity due to lens flange to focus plain distance difference.
Seamuis, you seem to have a problem with Roger expressing his opinion, while freely giving your own. There's nothing wrong with holding different opinions here.
Seamuis, you seem to have a problem with Roger expressing his opinion, while freely giving your own. There's nothing wrong with holding different opinions here.
séamuis
Established
i disagree. in fact I’m very welcoming of hi opinion, I just don’t completely agree with parts of it. if you reread my statements more carefully you’ll see that I on more than one occasion allude to his knowledge and respect his opinion. just because I offer a strong counter opinion doesn’t mean I don’t like the idea of him expressing his own. what we have here is actual discussion, and expressing of opinions, nothing more.
matt_mcg2
Established
I can't speak for the older Pentax lenses and bodies, but I had a 50mm f1.4 Super-Takumar that was fantastic. Sadly mine had yellowed due to the thorium glass, so if you'd measured the exposure properly it would have been more like f2, but it remains one of the nicest rendering lenses I've owned.
freecom2
Established
Frank, how far out can you focus to?
BW400CN
Bessamatic forever!
Interessing to read!
I´m in a simmilar situation.
As I collect Voigtländer Bessamatic, I got a Pentax Spotmatic from a friend as a gift to display it as the rival of the Bessamatic CS.
At first I just thought - OK put it on the shef and leave it there maybe buy a lens to shut the fronthole
then I got the cam and it was working so nicely that I realy want to get a nes batterie and a lens to give her a try with a film or two, but @ first I have to get a lens!
I just think about a Super Takumar 1,8 55mm which should be right for the period the cam was made.
Happy New Year 2013!
Michael
I´m in a simmilar situation.
As I collect Voigtländer Bessamatic, I got a Pentax Spotmatic from a friend as a gift to display it as the rival of the Bessamatic CS.
At first I just thought - OK put it on the shef and leave it there maybe buy a lens to shut the fronthole
then I got the cam and it was working so nicely that I realy want to get a nes batterie and a lens to give her a try with a film or two, but @ first I have to get a lens!
I just think about a Super Takumar 1,8 55mm which should be right for the period the cam was made.
Happy New Year 2013!
Michael
FrankS
Registered User
This combo focuses out to about 4 feet with the lens set on infinity. I was disappointed.
Livesteamer
Well-known
This thread seems to illustrate that certain cameras have a magic that attracts users to them. The Pentax Spotmatic and H3v are very similar and yet the H3v is "wonderful" to me and the Spotty is just another camera.
What is it that makes a camera "magic" to you? Sorry if I digress here. Joe
What is it that makes a camera "magic" to you? Sorry if I digress here. Joe
FrankS
Registered User
Lets start a new thread on that, an interesting topic.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, they were certainly less expensive than Nikons, so in that sense (which is how I meant it) they may have been 'too cheap'. I really don't believe that any manufacturer of good cameras doesn't want their cameras used professionally, but you could certainly be right that the 'pro' thing was essentially a marketing invention.
Why, though, did Pentax fail to cash in on it? As you say, they were pro cameras (in the sense of being actually used by professionals) for a long time. Few professional photographers are stupid, at least when it comes to choosing cameras, so it's hard to believe that it was marketing alone that squeezed out Pentaxes.
Besides, they did make professional cameras: the 67 was a staple in professional use, though admittedly, at one studio where I worked in the late 70s we had to have three of them, two to use, and one in for repair at any one time. Why no professional 35? Apart from the LX, which was pretty much a failure? Was it the (relatively) poor reliability of the 67?
In short, I'm not saying you're wrong, because much of what you say is undeniable, but equally, I don't see any good reason for their decline in professional use relative to Nikon and Canon other than a damaged reputation -- and reputations are seldom damaged without a reason.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Your point about 'magic' is certainly true, but I'd dispute that the SV and Spotmatic are 'very similar'. The SV, last of the pre-mass-production designs and arguably the greatest, was (as séamuis says) rather different in design and build from the Spotmatic. Or is it, as I said earlier, that there were simply too many Spotmatics around, at prices that were too low? It was (relatively) a cheap, common camera. Many 'magic' cameras owe at least part of their reputation to scarcity.
Cheers,
R.
raid
Dad Photographer
The Takumar lenses are excellent. I love the 85/1.8 SMC and the 50/1.4 SMC. A best buy is the very sharp and flare resistant 28/3.5 that is cheap. I paid $6 plus shipping from KEH. As for cameras, I like using the Spotmatic F that I had CLA'd a few years ago.
I suggest that you use this camera and lens.
I suggest that you use this camera and lens.