[jeallen01]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

TBH, you really have to "go back" to the (long gone) days when the Novoflex and Photosniper lenses were introduced - i.e. no autofocus bodies/lenses at all, and all of the "long" lenses were manually focused "long-throw" types, and thus were very slow to focus. Thus anything that made focusing easier/quicker was welcome, especially if, as with the Novoflex ones, they had spring-loaded/geared mechanisms that could be operated by one hand.

OTOH, I'll grant you that, in today's "atmosphere", anything that looks remotely like a gun will raise alarms as the vast majority of people wouldn't have any concept of cameras with lenses like that on them.

---

Last edited by jeallen01; 06-26-2020 at 02:59 PM.

[35mmfilmfan]

Well, they snuck this one under the radar :

Pentax 35mm SLR Film Camera with Lens 5053690000435 | eBay

Unannounced redesign of the ME Super - well, that's what it says in the description.

[Wasp]

I seem to remember Tony Northrop going through a Top Ten worse ever camera ideas, and that came out as No 1. Imagine the reaction if you pulled that thing out at a public event. There has been even worse though - a camera that looked a bit like a Tommy Gun with a lens in the barrel and small circular negative in each of the chambers.

They were quite widely used by pros in the manual focus film era. As an ambitious amateur, I rocked an SMC Pentax A 400mm f/5.6 myself. At the time I felt a little jealous of the Novoflex guys. It was quite a piece of kit. Besides the fancy focus trigger, you could swop the front lens barrels between 400mm, 600mm and various others. It even has a built-in extension tube. However, optically speaking there is nothing special about the Novoflex. The early 400mm Novoflex had two elements in one group. The later, improved ones had three elements in two groups. The optical formula of my Pentax is way more sophisticated with seven elements in six groups. I should have been looking down upon them.

Novoflex Noflexar modular PIGRIFF system 240mm, 280mm, 300mm, 400mm, 600mm, 64cm Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

SMC Pentax-A 400mm F5.6 Reviews - A Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Wasp]

Why waste your hard earned on a brand new Canon twin lens kit when you can have all of this for the same money? A dead brand camera that was introduced six years ago, what's not to like?




Samsung NX30 Smart Camera - Cameras - 1061693842

[Wasp]

There is optimism. Listing a Canon F-1 with Canon 50mm f/1.8, Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 and some obscure teleconverter for USD375 is something else - especially in South Africa.

The problem with this listing is that there is a Pentax strap included. That means I going to be seeing this for a long time.



35mm SLR - Canon F-1 film camera with three lenses for sale in Johannesburg (ID:472867381)

Edit: yes, in the land of the clueless a teleconverter is a lens.

[Racer X 69]

From the "could do better" corner. A Novaflex? The correct spelling is right there on the item...

No mention of the actual focal length or mounts either.



Used: Novaflex with several mounts ? KAMERAZ

Looks like a large caliber Uzi.

[Lord Lucan]

.
Another "fake" 1:1.2 lens

ASAHI PENTAX MX 35mm Film Camera with SMC PENTAX-M 1:1.2 / 50mm lens. | eBay

[c.a.m]

Another "fake" 1:1.2 lens

Including the rare KM version of the MX.


How do people manage to translate the aperture to "1:1.2?"

[steamloco76]

Including the rare MX version of the KM.


How do people manage to translate the aperture to "1:1.2?"

Type in 50mm f/1:1.2 or 50mm f/1.2 into the fleecebay search, you will get a couple f/1.2 lenses and a million f/2 lenses pop up.

[Lord Lucan]

Including the rare KM version of the MX.

I never even noticed that - I was so engossed in the "1:1.2" lens !

They have taken the advert down now, so maybe someone pointed it out. Let's see if both errors are corrected when it comes back on.

[Astro-Baby]

How is this even possible ????

Minolta X-500 35mm Film SLR camera MD 50mm f1.7 Lens and Strap | eBay

Managed to get the lens on upside down. I had to try to see if it was even possible and I just cant do it so I am guessing it would be tough to remove it.

Sellers tag is ‘rebrandedhuman’ yep......proof that species can devolve I guess.

[Benz3ne]

ME Super x2.
SMC-M 50mm f/1.7 x1.

Arrived yesterday, good comms with the seller who described as 'all in good order' when I asked about condition/shutters firing/electronics working/etc.
Everything a bit of a mess. Lens is salvageable but I don't want the hassle, both camera bodies not good. Someone has taken a rag to the focus screens, which are both laden with bumper foam, one has a dink in the prism housing, appears to meter around -2EV of what it's looking at and won't fire. Shame about the focus screen on the other as it appears to meter and fire well and electronics work.
Seller offered a £15 refund in the view that they're "sure you (I) can make good of at least one of the cameras", I offered to send everything back for a full refund less postage costs (so they're not out of pocket).
Seller offered to receive only the cameras back. I said yes provision to scrutinising the lens more. Lens is chock full of crap, so I've messaged back to say nope, my original offer stands (which I know they'll refuse) so PayPal dispute raised.
Seller has since stated that they were in their loft for 'some years' and that they're 'not a dealer' so apparently are unable to give any accuracy whatsoever to the condition of the goods. None of which stated prior to the purchase. Seller has said since, 'sold as seen' and that it was a private transaction and that they were sold in good faith without trying them (conflicting to their above statement about good working order...).
I despair.

Lets see what the PayPal claim comes back with.

[Wasp]

ME Super x2.
SMC-M 50mm f/1.7 x1.

Arrived yesterday, good comms with the seller who described as 'all in good order' when I asked about condition/shutters firing/electronics working/etc.
Everything a bit of a mess. Lens is salvageable but I don't want the hassle, both camera bodies not good. Someone has taken a rag to the focus screens, which are both laden with bumper foam, one has a dink in the prism housing, appears to meter around -2EV of what it's looking at and won't fire. Shame about the focus screen on the other as it appears to meter and fire well and electronics work.
Seller offered a £15 refund in the view that they're "sure you (I) can make good of at least one of the cameras", I offered to send everything back for a full refund less postage costs (so they're not out of pocket).
Seller offered to receive only the cameras back. I said yes provision to scrutinising the lens more. Lens is chock full of crap, so I've messaged back to say nope, my original offer stands (which I know they'll refuse) so PayPal dispute raised.
Seller has since stated that they were in their loft for 'some years' and that they're 'not a dealer' so apparently are unable to give any accuracy whatsoever to the condition of the goods. None of which stated prior to the purchase. Seller has said since, 'sold as seen' and that it was a private transaction and that they were sold in good faith without trying them (conflicting to their above statement about good working order...).
I despair.

Lets see what the PayPal claim comes back with.

Ah yes, that old line of "I am not an expert." Just looking things over and using a bit of common sense should tell you that all is not well. Even fifteen minutes spent doing research on the internet will make you an "expert" these days. What is also bad is when sellers try to make a diagnosis and concludes that it is an easy fix.

[Lord Lucan]

Seller has said since, 'sold as seen' and that it was a private transaction and that they were sold in good faith ...

That is only a mitigating defence against a formal accusation of fraud which you have not made (yet); it is not a reason to refuse refunding you. If they claim to be acting in good faith then they should return your money.

[They] Managed to get the lens on upside down. I had to try to see if it was even possible and I just cant do it

You need to put more welly into it! Perhaps they used a pipe wrench

[Benz3ne]

Ah yes, that old line of "I am not an expert." Just looking things over and using a bit of common sense should tell you that all is not well. Even fifteen minutes spent doing research on the internet will make you an "expert" these days. What is also bad is when sellers try to make a diagnosis and concludes that it is an easy fix.

Yup, that phrase mentioned after the goods arrived and I had voiced my concerns. Until then it was 'all good working order'. They claimed that with my knowledge that I'd be able to fix it. I gently reminded them that a novice's understanding of the functionality of a film camera is NOT the same as a professional repairperson's. Same goes for the 'they were stored in my loft for some time and consequently carry some amount of dust' type statements - had I known they were in the loft prior to sale then it would've been a red flag for me.
I definitely agree though, it wouldn't have taken any effort to look through the viewfinder and see that it was caked in 'grubbins' (thats our word for grubby gubbins). Same applies to the lens. Same applies to the non-firing which I explicitly enquired about.

That is only a mitigating defence against a formal accusation of fraud which you have not made (yet); it is not a reason to refuse refunding you. If they claim to be acting in good faith then they should return your money.

That mitigating defence was only mentioned after I advised that the goods received were not in working order as described anyway. Same goes for the they were found in my loft, and the 'I'm not a dealer/expert' type statements.
Funnily, they've said "I think the issue is only with the cameras and not the lens" to which I'd advised that a lens full of bits 'n' pieces is not issue-free, despite not being an expert or trying them... after their statement re: good working order. They keep stating that they were not setting out to deceive, which I largely believe. They have little understanding of the cameras they've sold, or the lens, or their workings but ultimately they've made no effort to ensure any accuracy whatsoever either. Not so much deception, more of a 'I can't be arsed' type approach I think. I agree, a £15 refund in good faith is exactly not that.

I (personally) don't see it unreasonable for me to bear all postage costs, be refunded the item costs and return the items to them, but they can't see that for whatever reason. In fact, they've ignored/overlooked that offer around 4 times already, which I've also highlighted.