M42 screw mount

[User_4525289]

<p>Likewise adapters are nice thing to use, I should consider one just I do not know which one is good. The price range for them is 5-40 dollars, the cheapest ones do not allow the focus on infinity. Any suggestion about them. Like I said I have prestine Ricoh KR5 superII with the K mount, which I was about to sell, but I can reverce that decision. </p>

[alex macphee]

<p>Just a small postscript on adapters. If an adapter does not allow focus at infinity, that ought to be a register issue, not a manufacturing tolerance one. That is, it should be down to the distance between the lens mount and the film plane, where the incoming light is brought to a focus. For some camera mount and lens combinations, it is not possible to have infinity focus in an adapter that does not have any optical elements in it. For example, you cannot mount a Yashica/Contax lens on a Nikon body while maintaining infinity focus, as the 'register' on Nikon mounts is too large. On the other hand, the register on Canon mounts is much shorter, meaning that there is enough 'headroom' to allow for the thickness of an adapter whilst still being able to bring infinity to focus at the right point. So I have adapters to mount my Yashica/Contax lenses on my Canon, but not on my Nikon.<br>

That said, I also have adapters to mount my M42 lenses on my Canons. One of the adapters works perfectly. The other is rather more poorly machined, and as a result, lenses mounted using it focus beyond infinity. It's an irritant, but it's less of an irritant that not being able to focus at infinity at all.<br>

There are some pages on the 'net that list the register distances for all the main SLR makes, so that you can see what combinations will work and which won't. A search ought to return these quite easily.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Another vote for the L series Prakticas. Nowadays, I think the ones that were made without through-the-lens metering are a better deal since on <em>any</em> camera from that era, there are problems in finding one with the meter working properly, and when you do, <em>keeping</em> it working properly.<br /> By the way, re the shutter drag on the M42 Pentaxes, that is a known problem with them, but it is easily adjusted and reset. Sometimes, they just need some exercise to keep them working smoothly.</p>

<p>And, yes, if you don't mind using them manually for stop-down, one of the best M42 platforms is any Canon EOS camera ever made and an inexpensive adapter.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Kozma, the Mamiya 1000TL and 500TL have a limited area metering which is different from averaging and center-weighted, but it works well. It's a little bigger than a true spot meter, but small enough to take precise readings of most subjects. I learned the basics of SLR photography using my dad's 1000T with the f1.4 lens.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>one of the best M42 platforms is any Canon EOS camera ever made and an inexpensive adapter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, this is how I got started into M42 actually.</p>

<p>Frankly, the cameras from the M42 era are all outperformed by modern SLR bodies. However, the lenses, from mild wides to short teles are really where some of the true values lie. </p>

<p>A good one to start with are the various versions of the Pentax 50mm f1.4. Pentax was going head to head against Leica at that point in time, and this really shows in both the mechanical and optical qualities of the lens.</p>

[User_4525289]

<p>Yeh, right cameras from M42 era all outperformed by modern SLR, as much as any of modern compact cars outperform a Deusenberg. Here is no question of the outperformance or even convinience as a matter of fact. If I would chose the modern camera I would w/o any reservation spend $400 for the Bessaflex TM and have the camera any conoisseur would drool about. I would say how could I better spent 40 bucks - adapter or reliable classical body?</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Yeh, right cameras from M42 era all outperformed by modern SLR, as much as any of modern compact cars outperform a Deusenberg.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you've exactly made my point. Much depends on whether one prescribes to the worn blue jeans or the white cotton gloves, display case school of photography equipment acquisitions.</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>Interesting. I used to be of the white cotton gloves school (and I still like to keep some things in tip top shape), but I had a slight change of outlook when out one day, lugging around my very best kit. Although I managed to get clean away, I found myself being lined up for a mugging and street robbery, and only just managed to spot what was happening in time.These days, my regular out-and-about kit is an old Yashica FX3, one of those with the poor quality leatherettte that comes away if you breathe too hard on it. It's the only poor quality piece of manufacturing about the camera, and the result is that it looks very tacky and cheap, and of course unresellable. It almost always has an old 35/2.8 Distagon on the front, itself in very beat up condition, worn paintwork, a scrape on the barrel, lettering faded away (it was like that when I bought it S/H years ago), but optically perfect and works as it was designed to.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Frankly, the cameras from the M42 era are all outperformed by modern SLR bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'll get no argument from me on the lenses, although there are a few decent ones made since ...;)</p>

<p>But. Some of the M42 and other older manual cameras are still miracles of machinery. Like a fine mechanical Swiss watch, they are the triumphs of their kind, and there is likely never to be any more of that kind.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>"Frankly, the cameras from the M42 era are all outperformed by modern SLR bodies."</p>

<p>That depends on how you define performs. More gadgets, light metering, electronics, reliability.. etc. Is that really performance?<br>

A box is a box is a box..the film at the back and the glass at the front. The only real performance issue is the glass in the front. Put a great piece of glass on a box 120 camera, it will outperform ANY 35mm ever made. The larger the film, the better the glass, the better the performance. How about really great glass on 8x10 sheet film. That's performance! That is if you define performance as the quality of the photograph produced. And there is some pretty good M42 glass out there, no matter what the body. Zeiss comes to mind.</p>

 

[User_502260]

<p>I have always enjoyed using the old M42 lenses more than the M42 cameras. I use the lenses with adapters on Canon F-1 and Minolta X-700 cameras. Metering is easy but you have to live without auto diaphragm operation. From my experience the Pentax SPotmatic cameras were the best made M42 models. The weak point is the meter switch. If you can find one without too much use and are willing to get it servuced, it might work for many more years. I just bought a Spotmatic F for $24.99 from an eBay seller. When it gets here I will see what work it needs. I have both SMC and older pre-SMC lenses so I will not get full aperture metering with every lens. If you need something inexpensive and with some possibility of reliability I would recommend that you get a Vivitar V4000 or V4000S together with an adapter for using M42 lenses on K mount cameras. I have several of the original Pentax adapters but others are also available. The V4000 or V4000S will give you all shutter speeds up to 1/2000 as well as a senstive and accurate meter which runs on MS-76 batteries. The camera has a real glass prism, not a porrofinder, and the viewfinder is reasonably bright.<br>

There was a P adapter made by Mamiya for its Auto XTL and Auto X1000 cameras. The adapter allows for stop down meteing but also gives auto diaphragm operation. One day I will find one of these adapters at the right price. Many different lenses were made in M42 mount. Some of my favorites include the 55/1.8 SMCT and SMC, the 55/2 SMCT and SMC, various 50/1.4 Takumars, the 105/2.5 Super Takumar, 20/3.8 Vivitar Fixed Mount, 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, 28/1.9 Vivitar Series 1, 55/2.8 Vivitar Macro, 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing, 200/3 Vivitar Series 1, 35/3.5 Noflexar, 50/1.7 Alpa. You won't win any speed records shooting with M42 equipment but there are plenty of nice M42 mount lenses out there.</p>

 

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>That depends on how you define performs. More gadgets, light metering, electronics, reliability.. etc. Is that really performance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's start with a specific - modern bodies tend to have (often significantly) higher shutter and sync speeds. On the same roll of TMY, this lets you shoot from available darkness to wide open under desert sun.</p>

<p>More abstractly, yes, the body is still just a light tight box no matter how fancy. However, the whole point of small format film photography is speed, fluidity, and spontaneity. The feature set of the typical wunderplastik body do expand the potential envelope in which images can be taken. </p>

<p>Nostalgia and appreciation of the camera hardware is certainly valid in of itself. However, as a picture making tool an EOS-3 with an EF prime is generally a better bet than an old Spotmatic kit. This is why I think the premium for a Bessaflex TM is a little silly. If the point is "acquisitionship" save a bit more for some Zeiss ZE or Canon L primes.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>You said it all in the last line, spend your money on good glass....</p>

[dophoto]

<p>Not that it's an option, but I'd give my eye teeth for a nice, simple digital body that would TTL meter with my M42 glass. <br>

It couldn't replace film, but it would be nice to have.</p>

[peter_de_waal]

I like to use a Minolta SRT 101 with a Minolta P-Adapter. I have a fondness for the pre-set Zeiss Jena glass of my Contax S, but appreciate the ease of use, 94% viewfinder image and built-in meter of the SRT. The SRT is one of the few M42 cameras that can meter effectively with pre-set aperture lenses.

 

I have also used the Olympus FTL, Praktica MTL5, Chinon CE II, Fujica ST801, Cosina Hi-Lite 405, and a couple of Spotmatics. The SRT 101 is the easiest to use as you just set the shutter speed, focus wide open and stop-down till the meter needle matches the speed indication circle-on-a-stick in the viewfinder and fire.

 

The SRT 101 was the cheapest of all of these M42 cameras and is definitely the best made of the bunch. It also has the best viewfinder, bright with good eye relief (0.84x) and shows 94% of the 24x36 image and weighs just 705g. Prior to this I also used a M42 adapter on a Konica T2. Just as functional, but the SRT's viewfinder is much better. So long as you can adjust the lens aperture without needing the stop-down pin to be depressed, the P-Adapter and the SRT are a very effective and cheap solution to the M42 body problem.

 

Peter

[peter_de_waal]

<p>Like so:</p><div></div>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>And so:</p><div></div>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Beautiful. There you go, the Biotar is one of the best.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Not that it's an option, but I'd give my eye teeth for a nice, simple digital body that would TTL meter with my M42 glass.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is somewhat the case if you use a Pentax DSLR body. For M42 lenses with an automatic diaphram, I believe metering is still stop down (by pressing the AEL button on the body) but at least focusing is done wide open.</p>

<p>Let me emphasize that I do not have a Pentax DSLR, so take the above for what it's worth. I looked into getting a cheap Pentax body awhile back explicitly for M42 lenses, but never did pull the trigger. Metering didn't bother me; it was rather that AF won't confirm with Canon SLR/DSLR's (but will on a Pentax.) I'd read too many bad reviews about the low quality of chipped EF M42 adapters and so didn't go that way either.</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>I have a couple of EF chipped adapters, one for M42, and one for CY. Both work pretty well. I have to confess to not knowing that much about electronics, but it seems to me that they don't do anything that couldn't have been made available by a menu item access to the firmware. There is no information flowing from the lens to the chip in the adapter for the adapter to relay to the camera, the adapter chip seems only to function as a way of turning on the focus confirmation in the camera. So I should have thought it possible, on the EOS, to have a Custom Function to turn on this feature so that it would work with lenses mounted via bare mechanical adapters.</p>

 

[robert lee]

<p>There's nothing in the customization menus to enable AF confirm on Canon cameras. It's not a technology issue but entirely a business decision.</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>That's pretty much what I figured.</p>

[User_4525289]

<p>I have won Mamiya/Secor 500DTL. Will see how I am going to regret my decision.</p>