[Ratmagiclady]

In late1966 I went from my H1a to a Canon FT, and it already had the QL system - and the FT only came out in March that year, so I think the FT was always Quick Load. I also had an FP body (non-metered) sharing lenses, and it was not QL. The Pellix came out a year before the FT without the QL feature, but it changed to QL when the FT came out.
I also loved the meter and general build of these cameras. The FL lenses had diaphragm ring at the front of the lens, like rangefinder lenses, which I believe is why they tended to get sluggish diaphragms due to the linkage design. I noticed on my 50 1.4 and 200 lenses back then that at fast shutter speeds and small apertures the diaphragm would not be fully closed at the right edge of the frame, so under these settings this part of the frame would be overexposed. The diaphragms would seem snappy open and closed when operated by hand, so you had to test for this carefully. That moved me from Canon to Leica back then.
A couple years ago I found a mint FT with the same lenses for under $40, and ... these lenses had the same problem. I did a full CLA on the body and lenses, and by removing the oils from the lens linkages and polishing them with dry lubes instead they now work as they should. The FL 50 1.4 (ver II) still seems to have better "snap" and contrast than the Takumar 50 1.4.

Yeah, that's right. That chassis was good for like fifteen years of production, and there's a TL in the family that might be three generations if one of my nephews ever picks it up. I never actually had an FL 1.4, myself, (Did experience a 1.2 I think it was on a Pellix,) ...those FL 50s take diffusers *really* *really* well, though. I think it's cause they're essentially an adapted rangefinder design, or just how they're laid out. I used to have the proverbial 'Grandma's Nylons' to go with till they totally unravelled. (Tiffen Softnets will do, but those old stockings really were magic. )


As for build, yeah, about as bomb-proof as an SLR gets. You could cold -cock some psycho with one of those and photograph em a second later. (This actually happened, kind of a random punk rock moment.)

[kiwi_jono]

I may have this wrong but as far as DOF goes...
On my ME Super, when I change to Manual the lens is stopped down (but wide open view in Auto) so I get to see the Depth of field in manual - or am I missing something?

[LesDMess]

Switching the ME Super to manual or aperture priority has no effect on the Pentax lenses aperture blades as they stay wide open all the time. Of course stop it down, unlock the lens and turn it counterclockwise - almost releasing the lens, and the aperture blades will close down ala DOF preview.

[LesDMess]

A possible alternative K Mount body to the ME Super would be the Ricoh XR7 . . . maybe . . .



Similar in size, weight and functionality, the XR7 additionally has DOF preview, AE lock, dedicated multiple exposure control and more more shutter speed controls. It has more plastic - shutter advance and left side dial, has no manual speeds if battery dies including bulb mode.

Below was the ad that enticed me to look for and get the XR7 in the first place.

Link to larger version -> http://www.fototime.com/5BC42A67DDD06BB/orig.jpg

[tromboads]

Switching the ME Super to manual or aperture priority has no effect on the Pentax lenses aperture blades as they stay wide open all the time. Of course stop it down, unlock the lens and turn it counterclockwise - almost releasing the lens, and the aperture blades will close down ala DOF preview.

Exactly!

BAM :P

That's true for every k-mount :P

[stevebrot]

A possible alternative K Mount body to the ME Super would be the Ricoh XR7

Definitely...back-in-the-day I chose the XR7 over the ME Super. It has all the features that the ME Super is missing with a similar build, size, and viewfinder quality. It might also be good to note that the street price for both cameras was about the same when they were sold new. The Ricoh was not a bargain camera or a cheap alternative to the Pentax.


Steve

[mattt]

Thanks guys, I was fortunately today to luck into an ME Super in black (I was looking for black in particular) in pretty nice shape (except for the usual skack in the VF) for <$50. Go figure. Put batteries, and a roll of HP5 Plus 400 in the back, and its running super smooth - My lucky day. We'll see how the photos come out. Now on the hunt for a 40mm pancake to put on the front of it.

Cheers

[John Poirier]

Thanks guys, I was fortunately today to luck into an ME Super in black (I was looking for black in particular) in pretty nice shape (except for the usual skack in the VF) for <$50. Go figure. Put batteries, and a roll of HP5 Plus 400 in the back, and its running super smooth - My lucky day. We'll see how the photos come out. Now on the hunt for a 40mm pancake to put on the front of it.

Cheers

I have the 40mm pancake,but it's not a lens I'm very enthusiastic about. I only have it because it was very cheap quite a few years ago- came on a body I wanted. I shoot with it maybe once every two years. Otherwise it's just a fat body cap. I'd say the lens is nothing special optically, and the focusing ring is too skinny for convenient use. Personally I prefer the M 50/1.7 when wanting to be compact with the ME Super or MX. The M 28/2.8 is also small and in my view a better lens than the 40.

I see you list a K 35/3.5 in your gear. It's pretty compact, optically superb, and has a good focusing ring. I have one as well and much prefer it to the pancake. The bright finder on the ME Super compensates for the slow lens in terms of ease of focusing.

I'm not saying don't buy the pancake, but I wouldn't panic or pay the going price for one.

[mattt]

I have the 40mm pancake,but it's not a lens I'm very enthusiastic about. I only have it because it was very cheap quite a few years ago- came on a body I wanted. I shoot with it maybe once every two years. Otherwise it's just a fat body cap. I'd say the lens is nothing special optically, and the focusing ring is too skinny for convenient use. Personally I prefer the M 50/1.7 when wanting to be compact with the ME Super or MX. The M 28/2.8 is also small and in my view a better lens than the 40.

I see you list a K 35/3.5 in your gear. It's pretty compact, optically superb, and has a good focusing ring. I have one as well and much prefer it to the pancake. The bright finder on the ME Super compensates for the slow lens in terms of ease of focusing.

I'm not saying don't buy the pancake, but I wouldn't panic or pay the going price for one.

Great advice - and to your point... it seems quite hard to come by for a lens with such mediocre reputation. I'd expect to find more and cheaper.

28mm is a focal length I'm comfortable with having DA21ltd I ought to put the gear acquisition syndrome on hold and erase the bookmarks for kijiji and ebay - just forget the word pancake.

[rolljob]

Lots of advice against the pancake, or a least that it is overpriced. But is $100 too much? Ebay always has a few going around that mark

[DaveHolmes]

Lots of advice against the pancake, or a least that it is overpriced. But is $100 too much? Ebay always has a few going around that mark

My M40-2.8 is currently attached to my black MEsuper (wrapped in bright orange leather) but neither see much of a workout... If I'm going to shoot film it's the (brown leather) MX & M50mm-1.4 and the MZ-7 & F35-70mm that make the bag... The 40 is improved by the use of a standard hood (metal, screw-in 49mm jobbie) but it then loses its 'pancakeyness' to the point that you may as well use a fifty...

Looks good tho...

The orange MEsuper&M40, purple MG&M50-1.4, cream Spotmatic&55-1.8 and ProgA&A50-1.7 live on the shelf with Batman, Green Lantern and the Joker