Pentax ME Super

<p>I'm considering a Pentax ME Super as my next camera, partly because of the viewfinder specs (0.95x, 92%). Unfortunately, it's an online purchase and I'm therefore unable to try before I buy. My Nikon FM2 has a big finder (0.86x, 93%) but I can't see all of it at the same time (even without my glasses). Would appreciate it if someone could comment on the eye relief of the ME Super. I have searched Bojidar Dimitrov's website and older threads here at PN but the actual measurement remains elusive. Is it better than that of the FM2 (which is only 14 mm according to the mir site)?</p>

<p>I have both cameras and I never really noticed any significant difference in eye relief (the Pentax is maybe slightly better) but I don't wear glasses. I don't have any problem viewing the FM2 finder. The Pentax finder is nicer though. If its just the finder that you are after then I would say stay with the FM, you won't gain much going to the ME. If however you care about lens quality, then definitely go with Pentax. I never really liked Nikon's harshness.</p>

<p> I have both cameras, and I think both veiwfinders are similar. I've worn glasses since 4th grade, have owned an ME Super for 27 years, and it is still my favorite camera. My other Nikons (F100 and F5) are much more advanced and consistently give me better results because of the auto focus and metering, but I still love to break out the Super every now and then. I say get one. There're inexpensive, so it's not like you're throwing down a grand for an old piece.</p>

<p>OK, so now I'm home, I have looked through both with similar lenses attached (both 50/1.4) and the ME Super finder is noticeably bigger and brighter. Eye relief for the Nikon has me just on the limit with the eyecup on. The ME on the other hand has no eyecup but I find I can get about 2 or 3 millimeters further away than the Nikon. So in short, the ME has a better finder in my opinion.</p>

<p>Check out the thread a dozen posts down re: eye relief for SLRs. There's a lot of experience in the replies. In summary -- Olympus OMs, Nikon F and F2, Leicaflex SL and SL2 and Minolta SRT. And of course, the king of the category, the Nikon F3HP. They all provide good eye relief for spectacle wearers with varying degrees of brightness and crispness.</p>

<p>Thanks for the helpful replies. The ME Super seems a good choice .... except that I now have an option on an MX (which I would prefer). Decisions, decisions .... </p>

<p>As much as I like the ME-Super, I vote for the MX if you have a chance to get one.</p>

<p>If you can get the MX, go for it. It's way nicer than the ME. I have 3 MXs :)<br>

The ME has a plastic top plate which is not really a bad thing but I am allergic to plastic ;)<br>

The MX has a (thin) brass top plate which gets dented easily but it feels much more solid and if you get a black one they look real nice when you use them and wear them out.<br>

But in the end, they all do the same thing, ie give you a box to put film in and mount a lens onto.</p>

<p>The more significant advantages of the MX are (a) the shutter mechanism is a refinement of the very robust traditional Pentax mechanism used since before the Spotmatic, and not dependent on either ageing electronic circuitry or batteries as is the ME Super, (b) the traditional, good-sized shutter speed dial that can be seen and pre-set before raising the camera to the eye rather than the ME Super's stupid arrangement of two tiny buttons that one must use whilst looking through the viewfinder, © a meter display that shows half-stop increments rather than the full-stop only increments of shutter speeds in the ME Super, (d) aperture indication in the viewfinder, (e) a lower-mass, horizontally-traveling shutter that causes less vibration than the metal, vertically-traveling shutter in the ME-Super, (f) a pneumatic piston dampener on the mirror movement, and the ability of locking the mirror up to eliminate mirror vibration completely (using the shutter tap method).</p>

<p>Regarding the story that the MX's top plate is thinner and more easily dented, I put that to the factory-trained head of the service division of the national Pentax agent in my country when I interviewed him for a magazine article many years ago and he stated that the top plate was NOT thinner than that traditionally used by Pentax. Perhaps more people tended to drop the camera because it's smaller size offers less space to grip it with.</p>

<p>IMHO the viewfinder in the ME Super is not as nice as in other cameras.<br>

I dont have an MX to compare it to.<br>

The viewfinder in the Super Program is a little larger. The Super Program also has depth-of-field preview and has some other nice features compared to the ME Super. One of my favorite cameras.</p>