Joe Wilensky asked:
> I've seen a few references on this group to those extolling the
> Pre-Spotmatic Pentaxes; anyone care to wax eloquent on their virtues
> (pure, meterless viewfinder, etc.)? I love reading that stuff!
Until a few minutes ago, I hadn't thought of a meterless viewfinder
as a virtue -- when I look at it, I mostly see the lack of the
convenience of a TTL meter. But now that I think about it, yeah,
it is kind of _pure_ to just see that rectangular frame with nothing
else around it.
*Maybe* that's a subliminal reason why I like the H3 and H1a, but
it certainly hasn't been a conscious one. I've mostly just liked
them _despite_ not having that convenient meter.
And despite how long it takes to change lenses.
Nonetheless, there's _something_ about them that just seems _right_
and _nice_ to me. I know that a part of it is how they fit my
hands -- they're a great size and shape for me. And counterbalancing
that lack of convenience is an aura of _simplicity_. Okay, so I may
have to think more, which means _my_ part of it isn't as simple, but
something about the simplicity of the machine appeals to me. It's
not telling me what to do, or doing things for me. I do the math
and/or take a handheld meter reading, set two simple settings, focus,
and KAclickCHUNK, the camera exposes a frame. No, using the KX is
no more complicated except that I don't have to take the camera away
from my eye to see a meter, but the H3 _feels_ like a simpler beast.
Call it an intangible. Mechanical poetry.
Hell, I even like the shape and feel of the film advance lever.
Gentle curve, always right where my thumb is looking for it,
smooth (unless I've stuck gaffers tape inside to make a panoramic
mask and not lined it up right so the film drags), and a reassuring
snap-back.
Little things, no, *tiny* things like that -- stuff so low in my
perception that it doesn't usually register consciously -- are
a big part (for me) of what makes those bodies feel like a poem
written in gears and springs and levers.
And you know what? I like some of those screwmount lenses. I've
not handled very many K-mount 135mm lenses (and I don't think any
of the ones I've held have been made by Pentax), but my off-brand
135mm M42 lens just seems very smooth, very clean, very _reassuring_
to operate. And the Takumar 55/1.7? Sweet. (Or is that a 1.8 and
the K is a 1.7? I'll go look later.) I don't know how they'd feel
(physically and somatopsychologically) on a K-mount body, but an
M42-K adaptor is on my shopping list, so sooner or later I'll find
out. I've not yet met an M42 zoom that I've really loved, but
the primes have mostly been rather pleasant both to use and to see
the results from.
Now don't get me wrong -- I love my KX and appreciate its own
style and rythym and feel and flow, enough so that the convenience
of that meter (and some lenses that I have in K but not in M42)
have me reaching for it far more often than I reach for the
screwmount bodies. And the automation in the Super Program sure
comes in handy, so I use that about as often as the KX (and for
some reason, it feels more natural to use a zoom on the Super
Program). But when I do pick up an H1a/S1a or an H3, usually
because the Super Program, KX, and Spotmatic all have film in
them and I want to shoot a fourth type of film, or because I'm
loading up with HIE (which I also sometimes shoot in the KX but
more often in one of the screwmounts), when I finally do get
around to handling one again, I'm reminded each time just what
delightfully *sweet* machines they are to hold and to use.
And once in a while I'll pick one up because I'm organizing my
gear, be reminded of how nice it is to use, and decide to put
some film in it just because I feel like using it.
Is there an unconscious "Look at me, I'm so macho I don't need
any modern features" lurking in the back of my mind adding to
the appeal? Oh, maybe. (Note that I'm not too manly to prefer
auto lenses instead of presets when I have a choice however!)
More often though, at least at all the *conscious* levels, the
appeal is _despite_ the lack of "modern" conveniences such as
a meter built in.
Is there a little "Heh heh ... I'm making waykule photos with
equipment older than I am (just barely)!" involved as well?
_Sometimes_: when I think about it. And yes, that _is_ a
thought I haven't gotten tired of yet. (Actually I need to
go back to the Spotmatic timeline on the web and check dates
of different models. I think some might not be as old as I
am, but if not, they're awfully darned close.)
> I had a Spotmatic II, but it seemed too similar to the KX;
Yah, I consider my Spotmatic and my KX to be very similar
in feel. The KX is a tad more convenient.
> I now
> fully enjoy the K-mount Pentaxes and the screwmounts, each for their
> distinct qualities.
Bingo! I love my KX. The fact that my Spotmatic feels a lot
like the KX is not a drawback. But it's _different_.
So I haven't really said all that much about _what_ is so great
about the pre-Spotmatic screwmounts, other than to babble on
about the fact that _something_ is, and that it's subtle. Oh
well, there you have it: what I'm able to say about them, so far.
How would I feel about a modern camera that _feels_ like an H3?
Well, it would cause me to change the priorities of my planned
ifwhen-I-have-the-money future purchases, that's for sure. I'd
want it.
Now I think I'll go fondle an H3 or an S1a (whichever one is
closest to the door of the room they're in) for a while before
dinner.
And someday I _shall_ get around to hauling all my broken ones
to a repair shop and saying, "Make as many of these work as you
can, using the others for parts if you have to." I like having
'em around.
-- Glenn, completely on-topic
for a change!
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
