"Slow photography" is hip, and everybody thinks you need an old Leica or an old Nikon if you want to participate. Not so, I say. If you want a film camera and have never shot with one, the way to go is Pentax.
Old silver Pentaxes are the quintessential 35mm film cameras. Mainstream, but iconic. Well made, but no frills. Stone classic.
There are lots of ways you can go with film. You can shoot color negative film and have it processed for you. You can shoot Ilford XP2 "chromogenic" black-and-white film and have it processed commercially, but then make your own prints with an enlarger. Or you can shoot genuine silver-halide black-and-white film and process it yourself at your kitchen sink—there's slow photography, and then there's slow slow photography.
If you want to go a little more modern, the killer camera would be a beautiful chrome MX. The MX was an MMM (manual, metal, mechanical) camera produced between 1976 and 1985.
But if you really want to go whole-hog into hip retro, no holds barred, no punches pulled, the way to go is to get a Spotmatic.
In either case, here's what you do: instead of spending big money on an old Leica, spend small money on an old Pentax, then spend as much as you can on the best servicing money can buy. Buy the top treatment at any good Pentax camera repair service center such as Abilene Camera Repair in the old Wild West cow-town of Abilene, Texas (401 Neas Road, Abilene, Texas 79601, 325/676-2524, contact@abilenecamera.com or acrkori@gmail.com). I don't have personal experience with Abilene; use whichever shop you want. (Google is your friend.)
I'm just using Abilene as an example so I can talk about prices. Their top-level "restoration" service costs $245 for either an MX or a Spotmatic. Added to the cost of a good camera, the total is still cheaper than many classic Nikons and all but the most beat-up classic Leicas. And you will have a camera that works as it is supposed to—clean, lubricated and smooth, with new seals and all parts inspected. It will run as well as a fine pocket watch. And will continue to work as it's supposed to for years to come.
The fabled "Spottie" was the legendary mainstream screwmount Pentax that spanned a number of models from 1964 to 1976. (The top choices being the original SP, which had two "budget" alternatives, the SP500 and SP1000; the SPII; and the later Spotmatic F.)
One thing to look out for is sellers screaming "MINT!!!" at you like manic candy salesmen—the Spotmatics featured double chrome plating over brass, and the cameras wear like iron. Many of them still look fresh and clean today, even if they've been abused. This excites sellers, who think they have "survivors" even though what they have might actually be pretty typical.
Having been well trained by our consumer culture, we all have a strong tendency to want to optimize. My advice: don't. If you want to go slow and retro, then go slow and retro! Don't try to get the latest or the sharpest or the one with the most features.
Another buying hint: both these cameras were much more common in chrome finish. The black ones, therefore, are more prized, rare, and valuable. The thing is, with any camera, the more valuable one will be the one in less supply. Don't think a black one is any better just because people are making a fuss over it. The classic look is chrome. Get that.
And you might be tempted to skip the CLA ("clean, lube, adjust"): well, that would be optimizing! (For minimal investment, in this case.) I just told you not to do that. :-)
The first lens you want for the Pentax MX is called an SMC Pentax-M 50mm ƒ/1.4. The ƒ/1.7 is a fine lens and a little sharper, but the ƒ/1.4 has perfect bokeh and, optically, just looks a little better overall.
For the Spotmatic, the screwmount lens you want will be called a Super Takumar, Super-Multi-Coated Takumar, or SMC-Takumar. Get the 50mm ƒ/1.4 first.
Although cheap now, they are legendary lenses: Pentax believed at the time they needed to do better than Zeiss if they wanted to overcome the perception that Japanese cameras were shoddily built (as many Japanese products were in the immediate aftermath of WWII). The company put everything they had into building these fast 50s, producing them, at least at first, at a loss. A famous comparison by Burt Keppler of Modern Photography and later of Popular Photography pitted the Pentax Super Takumar against the equivalent Leica lens. The Super-Tak came out on top.
With a 50mm lens, you will miss the pictures that you could have gotten with a wide-angle or a super-telephoto lens, but here's the way to console yourself: the number of possible great pictures you can take with a fifty is "infinity."
Don't fret. Have fun.
The right camera with the right lens: $159 for both,
leaving money left over for a thorough restoration.
True retro would be a restored and revived Pentax Spotmatic SP with a Super-Takumar 50mm ƒ/1.4, using a handheld light meter, shooting Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP-5 Plus and developing it yourself, making your own prints on fiber-base paper. My personal choice would be a restored and revived Pentax MX with an SMC Pentax-M 50mm ƒ/1.4, using the camera's meter, shooting Ilford XP2 and getting it developed commercially, possibly making prints yourself on RC paper.
Either one is the perfect retro film-camera experience. You don't even need to bother with spending more money.
Mike
(Thanks to the commenter who mentioned the MX the other day)
UPDATE from Ned Bunnell: "Mike, FYI, the go-to-guy for servicing film Pentax cameras is Eric Hendrickson. He's a former Pentax service manager who moved to Tennessee many years ago. He has all the equipment to work on the early film cameras including the various 6x7 models. He adjusted the 67 I bought from you. His work is superb, and he's honest and very reasonable with his rates. Contact info:
http://pentaxs.com/index.html
pentaxrepairs@aol.com
Cheers, Ned."
[Ned is the former President of Pentax USA. —Ed.]
Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Double chrome plated
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Dennis (partial comment): "I just took a look at the Spotmatic after reading this—it's a beautiful camera! I noticed that it uses 1.35 volt mercury batteries for the meter and that rang a bell...years ago, when I bought my HiMatic 7sII, I paid for a CLA and to have the meter circuit adjusted to 1.5V batteries. Apparently, that's one of the things that Abilene does as part of their repair service, but just another argument to not skip the CLA step."
Mike replies: Thanks. I should have mentioned that. Yes, the Spotmatic takes long-since-outlawed mercury batteries, so it's necessary to get the circuit converted. Another option is to use the Voigtlaender VC Meter II, which has the added advantage of being transferable to all your other old film-camera bodies. If you get a Spotmatic SP and want to use a VC Meter II, note that you need the clip-on "cold shoe" (the bit above the eyepiece meant to hold the flash), which itself is an add-on with the original Spottie.
Andrew adds: "It is my understanding that Pentax Spotmatics have a bridge circuit in the light meter and can use modern 1.55v silver oxide batteries without re-calibration."
Mike replies: Thanks. I really don't know the ins and outs of the meter circuit. As I implied in the post, I always used a separate meter with my Spotmatic II.
Bill Poole: "Ah, yes. During my brief time working in a retail camera store in the late 1960s, I came to love the Spotmatic, and to recommend it often to customers. (You don't mention to lovely clunk of its shutter—the solid sound of quality.)
"I'm not sure why you didn't mention that commercial development is also available for silver-based black-and-white films. While I continue to develop at home sometimes, I also use Photoworks San Francisco, just down the street, which also has a mail-order service. They charge $8 a roll, cheap enough, and the quality is superb.
"Also, you do not have to print wet to get the unique look of film images. Scanning and printing digitally yields lovely results, while Lightroom and Photoshop provide impressive controls over image contrast, burning, dodging, etc."
Paul B: "My first camera was a Spotmatic II, and saw me through high school and college. Later cameras never pleased me as much as my Pentax, probably not even my Leica M3 (which I love dearly). That Pentax was as rugged as a tank, and took as much abuse as I could dole out. When I was 'done' with it, I gave it to my brother who used it until he went digital in the early '00s. So it served us for almost 40 years with barely a whimper. And the lenses were great. Worked in all kinds of weather, too. I often think that people who want to learn photography ought to start with a Pentax, either a Spotmatic (partly for the screw mount experience), or a K-1000, and use a hand held light meter. But I guess I'm just an old guy now, with old fashioned ideals...."
Richard Alan Fox: "I was a camera repairman at Brooks Camera on Kearny Street in San Francisco during the mid 1970s. Pentax Spotmatics have a spring-loaded lever under the cover used to cock the shutter; a typical problem would be this lever popping and needing to be adjusted (if my memory serves).
"I received this award from my fellow repairmen after a rather unfortunate incident, and now, forty years and a continent away, I would like to share it with the world:
Dennis Mook: "Photographed well over a hundred dead bodies in the '70s and early '80s with a Spotmatic, 50mm ƒ/1.4 Super-Muliti-Coated Takumar, Tri-X, and a huge Honeywell potato-masher flash with a 510-volt battery hanging off my belt. Never let me down, not once. And no, I'm not going to explain anything more...."
[I'll just add that Dennis is not talking about dead camera bodies. —Ed.]
David Raaum: "My first camera was an Argus C-3 while I was in high school. When I got to Vietnam I bought the Spotmatic with the 50mm ƒ/1.8 at the Marine PX for $189.50. I used it through my entire Vietnam tour, even in the dug-in radio relay hole in Khe Sanh, South Vietnam. It worked all through the rest of the '60s, '70s, and the '80s until I switched to Nikon in 1990. I took a lot of great pictures, on Kodachrome slides, with that camera. When I stopped using it the meter had quit working; other than that it was fine. Great memories."
Jeroen: "Another point: I think the MX has a more than decent finder magnification (almost 1x with a 50mm). That makes photographing 'with both eyes open' much easier."
Mike replies: Some of the Olympus OM cameras also have great finder magnification. A luxury that the market never quite understood, unfortunately, but a pleasure to use even today.
Rod S.: "Mike, your post sent a thrill down my spine this morning when I scrolled down to the picture of that handsome Pentax MX in all its delicious chrominess.
"I loved the Pentax MX and used two bodies from 1977 until 1995, when I moved to the medium-format Pentax 6x7. I looked for but never found a better 35mm camera. The MXs accompanied me on many challenging adventures, including trekking expeditions to Everest in 1978 and K2 in 1994, and I was able to publish two magazine articles as a result.
"One special image from 1978, a portrait of two local boys in long-gone traditional dress, under dappled sunlight, will forever be one of my best photographs. The framed 16x20 Cibachrome print is remarkably detailed.
"The MX's controls are simple and intuitive. In particular, the meter display with 1/2 stop LEDs is perfect, easy to read and quite genius in concept, making 1/2 stop underexposure of transparency film—but only in direct sunlight—straightforward for maximising colour saturation. And the placement of the K-mount lens lock makes changing lenses one handed easily done.
"My only regret is that the wonderful design of the MX held me back from changing to medium format by a decade. That eventual change, and the use of a hand held light meter it required, really challenged my understanding and practice of photography.
"My first camera, though, was a new Spotmatic F (F for full aperture metering), a gift from my father in September 1974 for my eighteenth birthday. That camera introduced me to the Pentax tradition of 'elegant simplicity.' By comparison, most other brands of SLRs seemed bloated, heavy or had awkward controls. I am very appreciative of my father's thoughtfulness.
"Still, I came to see that the original Spotmatic has the most elegant line of the pentaprism housing of all, narrow and uncluttered by the hotshoe of subsequent models. :-) "
For those choosing a K bayonet camera rather than a screw mount like the Spotmatic, it's also worth mentioning the legendary Asahi Pentax K1000.
Essentially the same camera as the Spotmatic SP1000, but with the K mount, this all-manual camera is built like a tank, and is THE camera for film instruction due to its extreme ruggedness and dependability.
It's also one of the most commonly made cameras ever produced (although watch out for later plasticky Chinese models), so there a ton out there, but prices have been rapidly rising over the past couple of years.
One other thing to add: while the SMC Pentax-M lenses are fine in their own right, bayonet camera owners are also well-advised to consider the so-called "Pentax-K" lenses (actually simply marked "SMC Pentax"), which are a but larger than their later M counterparts, which are optimized more for size. They are typically optically identical to the Takumar series lenses, with a higher build quality and in many cases superior optics.
That's not to say M lenses are poorly made. I've worked on literally thousands of lenses, and IMO, the metal Pentax lenses are across the board the best-built and most sensibly engineered of any ever produced, including those by the famous European makers. In the rare cases when they do need service they are an absolute joy to work on.
Posted by: B. Gohacki | Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 06:34 AM
I was always an Olympus OM1 and then Nikon FM/FE person myself, but a few years ago found a Spottie F in perfect working order at a charity store, as well as the blessed trinity (28/3.5, 55/1.8 and 135/3.5 Super Takumars). The solid thwack of the shutter/mirror would frighten stray dogs and children, but it felt great to use and the results were superb.
I passed that camera on to a young guy looking for his first film camera to take to Sri Lanka for a year's volunteering, so I'm hoping he put it to good use.
Shortly afterwards I came across an ME Super with an SMC Tak 50/1.7, which I found petite and seductive like the OM - with a similar magnificent viewfinder - but a pretty girl had a greater need for it than I so it now resides in her hands. How do girls do that?
There's nothing quite like an MMM camera, muscle memory and Sunny 16. I do carry a small Sekonic L-208 but mostly don't need it. I've come to prefer HP5+ to Tri-X for general use and Agfa APX100 in Rodinal for a slower film. In Australia, Acros is the film you use when you've just sold a kidney, and Velvia when you've sold both.
The Pentax Holy Grail in my op-shop wanderings is to find an LX, but they appear to be as rare as hens' teeth.
Posted by: Lynn | Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 09:00 AM
My father always used Pentax. A silver Spotmatic that I still have. The first camera I bought when I got my first job was a Pentax ME Super with a 50mm f2 lens. I still have it along with the box and the manual. Eventually I got a Super A which I never liked and an LX which I love.
I had the chance to go to Venice for a couple of days and was surprised at the amount of people shoting with film cameras. Pentax and Nikon mostly.
Posted by: david Lee | Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 11:21 AM
Mike, it would be great to be able to comment individually to some of the comments here. Have you considered that option?
Posted by: david Lee | Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 12:07 PM
Is Brooklyn Beckham a TOP reader? He was recently photographed with a Pentax film SLR (looked like a K1000 to me). He was using a bit of rope for a strap - maybe couldn't afford a real one ;)
Posted by: HowardH | Monday, 31 July 2017 at 06:02 AM
A Pentax MX with the 50mm 1.7 was my first "proper" film camera... Well, the Olympus Stylus Epic/mju II that preceded it was equally proper but in a very different way. I lived them both dearly. All through my DSKR period Is occasionally pick up the MX and let out a little sob of dismay that my digital tools didn't fit my hand in the same way or give me as much joy when I looked through the viewfinder. Until I got a Fuji XE2 and discovered it has almost exactly the same body size as an MX without a mirror box and the same ergonomic location for shutter speed, aperture and fun button. Still makes my heart sing a little everytime I pick it up and use it... Wth the 35mm 1.4 and hood attached it's spooky how similar the proportions are to the MX with the 50mm. Makes me feel like I'm holding a "real" camera again everytime...
Posted by: Ed Waring | Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 03:39 PM