The Online Photographer

For Pentax related lenses, this is one site that has it all, Bojidar's Dimitrov: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/normal/index.html

Mike, what is you view on the Pentax Limited series (old and new)?

Mike,
How about an Olympus OM-4T and Zuiko 50mm F2 Macro as a setup? I have a roll of slides coming in this week to see how this setup performs.
I need to quit feeling like I don't know what to wear as I head out of the door. Too many cameras and not enough pictures lately for me...

Again, I'm gonna give my Pentax LX with A-50/1.2 a try... will be placing an order for tri-x film today

I think it was Art Wolfe who said the best lens is the one you have with you....

Jim,
It's not really "better" than the K1000 or LX. Just a little different. Small, manual, with a very good viewfinder. There's really nothing magic about any particular choice. The point is how much work you do and what lessons you learn....

Mike

Okay, I'll admit it. I have been shooting the K-1000 with the 50mm f2 loaded with T-Max 400 lately. The ME-Super has Fujifilm 200 in it. The ME-Super viewfinder is soooo nice compared to my Olympus E-500. Makes me think the K-7 could be interesting if the control dial on top of the Oly keeps acting up!

Maybe I'm really slumming, but I just started a Leica-less year today. I chose a rangefinder originally based on the Leica, the Russian Zorki 4. In my experience it takes beautiful photos. The lens, a Jupiter 8, is a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar 50/2.

I'm sure there are Leica purists out there choking at the mere thought of a Russian imitation, but it's a great little camera that can be had for less than $50 in most cases.

The viewfinder is bright, the lens is pretty, and I've got a brick of film waiting to be shot.

Can't agree more about the Pentax MX (I recall that, very cheekily, Pentax marketed it as an 'affordable Leica' because of its build, brilliant viewfinder and overall bijou'ness). My preference for it above the Olympus OM1 (which I also considered closely back in the early 80s), was influenced only by the latter having no aperture window in the viewfinder. Both great cameras, though.

As for the Coastal Optics lens, I'd hope that no-one would consider soiling its perfection by doing anything as sordid as, ugh, taking photographs with it.

I spent a couple years shooting nothing but a Canonette QL17 - the poor man's Leica. I think my photography really went to anohter level, though, when I switched to digital and was able to begin experimenting with different techniques without having to worry about film and developing costs, plus the instant feedback of seeing my shots right after I took them. Still, I sometimes miss lining up images on that yellow focusing patch, and don't find that my digital camera offers nearly the same type of tactile pleasure as the old rangefinder.

My first SLR was a Pentax S1a. This was given to me by my father. The first camera than I bought, with my own hard earned cash, was a Pentax MX. I still miss that camera which I sold in part exchange for a Contax 167MT. At the time, I mistakenly believed that I needed more automation. My experience with this camera is, I think, the reason that I have a hard time with autofocus and zoom lenses. For me, its modern incarnation is my Leica M8.

John

"The viewfinder is bright, the lens is pretty, and I've got a brick of film waiting to be shot."

benhigh,
What could be better!

Mike

"Is it okay to admit that I've developed a fetish for the thing?"

michael,
It's okay around here.

Mike

I am curious how the extended spectral response of this lens would affect the digital imaging sensors used in non-scientific cameras (which is to say I know some DSLRs and digital MF backs are modified to operate in infra- or ultra- ranges of light for scientific applications). I suspect it may not be a good option for a camera not equipped to deal with the extended light range. This is just a guess on my part. Too bad that Ctein is away (I'm assuming he's at WonderCon). This seems like it's right up his alley.

Patrick

Pentax is really cool. Personally, ever since I obtained SMCP A 50/1.2, I find it difficult to dismount it from the camera in favor of another lens. I used to have ME Super but unfortunately at the time I did not have the proper lens to mount on it. Although I do have all three FA limited lenses, A 50/1.2 is much more dear to me, being the lens I think of by default when I think of getting ready for a shoot.

The MX is all about tactile pleasure and feedback. I love it. The one I have is at home, now I'm visiting a friend in Finland and just bought the Novoflex adapter to mount K lenses on my GF1. I brought with me the 50/1.7 foreseeing this option and the results are beautiful. Having a 100/1.7 equivalent in that size on a well built camera and adapter combo, with a working aperture ring is surprisingly reminiscent of the MX experience. The automation works flawlessly in Av, you set the aperture and shoot. The focusing is just manual, but the magnification works perfectly if you need fine focus. I think an MX and a good Micro 4/3 camera with a good adapter is a great beautiful combo to have film and digital covered. The Novoflex lens adapter even has an exra aperture ring for digital pentax lenses that don't have one. I'm eager to try de 15/4 Limited I have at home on the GF1.

Dear Scott,

But your criticism is true of every single lens. In fact, there is no lens made that is suitable for most applications. There is not even a hypothetical, ideal lens that would be.

Therefore, that's a useless criterion, as all lenses fail to meet it.

pax / Ctein

I bought a Nikon FM over the less expensive Pentax MX in 1978. The two cameras were identical in the layout of controls and manner of operation but the MX was smaller and easier to hold and had the cutest 3-color LED exposure indicator.

I had buyer's remorse for the next few years-additional Pentax lenses were less expensive too than their Nikon AI equivalents. It's hard to remember the time when Nikon equipment cost significantly more than other brands, simply because it was Nikon. Or did build quality have something to do with it? Mike?

I have owned an MX since the mid 1980's and use it regularly. For the most part I shoot color with a DSLR and the black and white with the MX. As to the lens, don't forget the 35mm SMC M f2. It is a gem and is part of my very traditional three lens kit: the 35mm, a 50mm f2, and a 135mm f3.5. All are solidly-built Pentax M lenses but the 35mm is rarely off the camera.

The only thing that I do not like about the MX is that, at least on my camera, the shutter is quite noisy.

Re. LX vs. MX I have to say that the LX is very good but not quite as reliable, and requires more maintenance, at least in my experience.

I had the exact combo (MX + 50/1.4) for a couple of years and couldn't agree more. I had been thinking of buying another MX of late but, that's probably out the window for nw thanks to the TOP effect on ebay prices...

"However, what is really in my mind today is an interview with Robert Adams I just stumbled across in the MAY/JUNE 1995 "Darkroom & Creative Techniques." Adams describes how he shot all the photos for his book 'Listening to the River' with a Nikon F3 and a 28mm lens. So there it is, Mike: a manual focus camera (albeit with aperture priority AE capability) and a single lens...in the hands of a master."

latent_image,
Just out of curiosity, who was the editor of that magazine at the time?

Mike

Thanks Patrice! Glad we came into your life at the right time. It's always nice when that happens.

Mike

"The only thing that I do not like about the MX is that, at least on my camera, the shutter is quite noisy."

Edd,
The Achilles' heel of many a Pentax, including the great LX. But it was somewhat a weakness of the times. Have you ever heard a Nikon EL go off? My god, it's like a miniature pistol shot!

It's the context in which the Leica was known to be extremely quiet, a reputation it continues to hold today even though it's not particularly quiet any more, relatively...certainly not compared to some of the silent digicams.

Mike

I bought my MX in 1984 and used it until I got a Pentax K10D in 2007. My last 5 years with the MX, though, I shot colour negative film, had this commercially processed, then scanned it and made prints with an inkjet printer.

At least the Coastal Optics lens is priced like a Leica. And if I owned one, I'd finally be able to shoot stuff lit with those black lights I kept from the 60's.

¿200 bucks? Blimey! I just bought three old Nikkors (a 24, 35 and 105 of the cm version) for 120 $ off Ebay and then a Nikkormat body for around 40. Lenses were ok, tough not collector-pristine, and body was fine except for the meter, erratic.

I "upgraded" to an MX from my first camera, a Yashica TL Electro X. Chose it over the Nikon precisely because it had leds, I found it difficult to see the needle in the dark. I still use it, tough I developed a Pentax fetish -that underdog feeling- and bought the MeSuper, Lx, SFx, the lot.

Only surprise came as I went digital: My first SLR was a K100D Super, wich I loved a lot. Then I upgraded to a K20D, but I do not like it as much. Still can't understand why. I might downgrade to a K-x.

Now that I come to think about it I probably could have bought a Leica and a lens with all the money invested in "inferior" stuff...

I did a Pentax MX 'year' (with the f/1.7 & Tri-X) for *several* years in the late 70's/early 1980's because it was my first SLR and I had no money except for film & dev. I had no problem with that, I thought it was perfect. My friends were using the new Canons with aperture priority and thought I was mad. Funnily enough I'm still taking photos on manual cameras including a loved M6 & various Rolleis because now I have (or had) more money. Unfortunately the MX got stolen in 1983. Now I'm lusting after another. They seem a lot less than $200 here in the UK. Ironically, now I can't afford one though! Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

Wouldn't it be a nice idea if they fitted modern camera's with a Mike Johnston mode?

From the manual of the Canon 600D:
The Mike Johnston mode turns of the auto focus, puts the light meter on center weighted and manual selection of shutterspeed and f/number, an ISO of 250 and emulation of tri-x. The Mike Johnston mode unblocks after 365 days. Warning: in Mike Johnston mode the camera freezes with zoom lenses!

This is a bit off the topic of this thread but a comment about the quality of the review of the best lens. I can’t really agree with your assessment when the review leads off with a glaring factual error. The lens is not patented. The document sited is a US Patent “Application,” not a granted patent. I checked and the application has not even been examined yet. This is a common mistake made by those not familiar with patent law. None the less it is a fine looking lens.

Reckon the Ricoh KR10 that I started with back in 1981, just won't qualify here, let alone compete in the fond memory stakes of the audience. It was probably a poor mans Pentax in those days, with it's K bayonet mount, and some 'heaven forbid' plastic bits. I was always skint back then, and the cheapest glass to get you going, was Ricoh's 50mm f/2.8 lens.

After buying the camera, the main items of shopping interest over the next few years, were a few lenses, and film that would give decent results. There was never any hankering to change the camera, it worked just fine. And it still does, though hasn't seen much use of late. My digital era commenced in 2005 with a Panasonic prosumer, and then in 2008, the Nikon DSLR's and lenses started...

If I do use the Ricoh again, it will only be with B&W film. The only colour film that gave results I liked was Kodachrome. Colour negative film always seemed to disappoint... see appropriately timed topic "B&W vs. Color, not Film vs. Digital". I have no plans to go down the darkroom route.

A local shop has a Pentax 50mm f/1.7 for £59, or there's the same lens with an ME Super attached for the same price! Trying to resist. I do not need it in the least, but didn't do enough B&W work in my early days. Hmm... might be fun? Is this the TOP effect taking hold?

I remember coming across the latest released Pentax Spotmatic II with 50mm 1.4 at a friends place in London in 1972. Looking into that magically coloured wide glass lens was like looking into the eye of God...and I wanted one. I spent 3 months working at horrible jobs to raise the fare home to Oz and stop off at Singapore (the cheap alternative then) to score one. I still have it; tho I replaced it with a Spotmatic F when the light meter wasnt able to be repaired. (Damn thing only lasted 35 years!!!) Soon after I went digital. I still use all my old lenses on the current gear.
You guys are making me feel I ought to get 'em out and use up some of that film I've got stashed away. Sheesh - as if I didnt have enough problems! Dennis F.

One thought on the one true camera -
Instead of the D7000orwhateverthehellitscalled i'd been saving for, I realized after pulling wet negs from the JOBO that what would make me happier was a decent scanner. Granted, I'm still too much in love with toys to be a monogamist - but hell, I take pictures for ME not anyone else - but being able to get quicker feedback on what my Leica/Nikon/Linhof make would be a huge draw in sooting more. Darkroom work is great, but being able to make 'work prints' digitally so i can focus on just one print for an evening in the darkroom should make for a good print every so often rather than a bunch of ...something just to use the chemistry.

Didn't agree with your first post on this subject, Mike, and still don't agree. One of the great virtues of digital is, that it makes it cheap and easy to take a lot of pictures. And taking a lot of pictures, to my mind, is exactly what you need to do to improve your photography.
Not just mindless snapping of course. But there is nothing wrong in letting technology take care of all the rest, while you concentrate on - lets say - composition. When you think you have got a feeling for that, then go on experimenting with lighting - and so on.....
BTW I own a Pentax 50/1.4. Not the M-version, though, but the A-version. I realize that is probably much to high-tech for some ;-) It works well on my Pentax DSLR's. But it has an issue with flares and general lack of contrast. I guess its the lack of back-coating, that makes it less than perfect for digital - unfortunately.

There is a lot to be said for both views: the shoot for a year on a non-automatic film camera, and the view presented by Lars above, on shooting a lot with a digital camera.

I shot with a canon FTb and one 50mm lens for many years before acquiring one more lens (21mm). Fast-forward many years after that... while then shooting with a canon A1 (automatic exposure) and several lenses I felt I learned more... fast-forward to the last 1.5 years: finally switching to a digital SLR (K20) has been very freeing: I shoot many fast pictures and almost many very slowly composed pictures. The instant feedback and the lack of cost have been wonderful.

So, I am a firm believer in both approaches.

Paul, as I understand it, the OM-2 is an aperture-preferred automatic with a very effective manual control mode, in which the viewfinder meter display changes to mimic that in the (manual) OM-1. So manual control might not be compromised in the way it is with most auto exposure cameras.

However, I think the spirit of Mike's suggestion is that the MX is likely the most Leica M-like SLR. It's purely a manual camera, with no distractions. The controls are near-identical, the size is similar, the shutter is similar (horizontal-travel cloth shutter), and the viewfinder magnification and displays are first-rate. The spirit of the MX matches that of the Leica M.

In a translated interview that appeared in an Australian magazine around five years ago, the chief of Pentax design at the time said that when the OM-1 was released in 1973, they realised that Olympus had succeeded in improving upon the classic Pentax design. They then set out feverishly to produce a Pentax camera that improved upon the OM-1. (Their designs for the 1975 KX and KM cameras must have been finalised). He said that the team ate and slept in their office until their design for the MX was ready. So, the inspiration for the MX was the OM-1.

A few years ago I decided against buying an M7 when I realised I could achieve pretty much what I wanted with my existing MX and 43/1.9 or 50/1.4.

What makes this setup so brilliant is its diminutive size and simplicity. Just throw in some film (I used to like Fuji NPC160), don't forget to set the film speed and go.

The control interface is *so* intuitive and quick that you don't miss auto modes at all. With the snappy click of the Pentax-M aperture ring and the shutter dial easily to hand, you just pick one and turn the other until you have a nice little green dot - and bingo!

Hmm, think I might go buy me some film...