In praise of older Spotmatics...

[capitalq]

<p>Inspired bu Louis Meluso's excellent series taken with a Spotmatic F, I thought I would post some fairly recent images taken with my trusty old Spotmatics.</p>

<p>At the risk of repeating myself...These beauties from the early-60s were very influential on camera design. When you compare the huge metal bricks of that era (Topcon RE Super, Canon FX, Nikon F come to mind), the Spotmatic is positively dainty and light (but still substantial) in comparison. Also, when you look at the controls layout of a Spotmatic, you realize just how influential Asahi's designers were on all camera manufacturers. The switch placement, rewind crank, back-release of the Asahi design all became the defacto standard of how cameras should look and behave. Don't believe me? Take a look at the "odd" control knobs of the Nikon F, or the body-mounted shutter buttons of the Mirandas or Topcons. Heck, I'm not saying that Asahi's is the best design, but when you compare a Spotmatic to a Canon AE-1 (heralded as many as ushering in the era of lightweight and ergonomic designs), a camera novice would be hard-pressed to see much difference in the size, weight and feel of the older all-mechanical camera...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>This was taken at a friend's cottage last summer...</p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>A shot taken at a playground not far from home...</p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>If I recall correctly, this was taken using the internal stop-down meter of the Spotmatic using a standard 50mm lens. For all of those who know what I mean, this is particularly challenging when shooting a fast moving subject...It's only when you use the older camera systems do you truly appreciate the convenience and ingenuity of design that evolved into our 'modern' SLRs... </p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>Another one from the cottage. I know this particular composition has been done a thousand times before, but it's the first time I've done it...</p><div></div>

[john carter]

<p>I still happily take my Spotmatic anywhere. It always works, and has only had a meter problem since 1969:<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/2350544219_81673b0b54.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[LenMarriott]

<p>Capitol, First photo, RHS, on the table: is that serrated disk a rear lens cap (Canadian model perhaps)? Looks too small for a front cap. Your images prove that there's still life in the old classics yet. Best, LM.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>Len - Good eye for detail. Yes, the serrated disk is definitely a Canadian model: it's a beercap from a recently consumed cold beverage. I did mention we were at a cottage... </p>

[lachaine]

<p>The Asahi Pentax actually preceded the Nikon F as a 35mm camera that pros would use. The Spotmatic was the prototypical 35m SLR, with, as you said, the control layout that became the familiar layout we all know about now. Nikon was still using an oddball system on its Nikkormats even into the 1970's. Personally, I've never thought of Canon as having "ushered in the era of lightweight and ergonomic designs". It was Olympus which was the leader for compactness and light weight in the 1970's - although Pentax moved that way admirably with the MX (in 1976, as I recall). While the Spotmatic name died with the introduction of the K-mount in 1975, all subsequent Pentax cameras were still Spotmatics in layout - the KX, K2, MX/ME, K1000, etc. I had an SP1000 (the base model of the Spotmatic II), a K2, an MX and an early K1000 when these were all new, current cameras. Never considered any other make at the time. All the others always seemed a little odd to me.<br>

We only need the "convenience" of today's computerized electronic cameras (digital or film) so that people can take pictures of anything instantly without having to think ahead. Other than that, I value the elegance and simplicity of the older cameras over the convenience, myself.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Very nice pictures.</p>

<p>The frames? For me they detract from the pictures, but chacun à son gout as they say in Québec.</p>

 

[capitalq]

<p>Pierre, I agree that the Olympus OM1 was revolutionary in its design and compactness in 1973 (and beautiful to look at and hold). It certainly influenced the trend to smaller and more lightweight cameras. But it was still a clockwork camera and the control layout (ASA settings on the right side and shutter speeds on the bayonet mount) were quirky -- it looks nothing like a Spotmatic. And unlike the AE-1, the OM1 did not have a CPU or use plastics in the body. But your point is well-taken. I was just comparing the venerable Spotmatic to one of the most popular cameras ever made (and still widely in circulation or otherwise gathering dust in closets everywhere). </p>

<p>JDM von W - As I've said in another post, the border treatment comes from me filing the neg holder (I print my own work). Now, for better or worse, all of my uncropped photos have this look...Vive le difference! </p>

 

[james_kennedy9]

<p>OK, JDM.<br>

If you put an accent grave over the a, don't you also have to put a circumflex over the u in gout?</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>A lovely series of pictures, Q. I like the Singing Boy and Dirty Canoe very much. The Takumars have a great clarity to them and the Spotty feels good in the hands. I wish they had better eye relief for eye glass wearers. A rubber eye cup helps a great deal to protect your glasses from the metal viewfinder frame. </p>

<p>John- That is a delightful still life. Beautiful, delicate tonality.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>Mssr. Meluso: Thanks very much for your kind words. Your thread has re-inspired me to take out the Spotmatics on more photo-safaris...</p>

<p>Mssr. Carter: I agree with Louis. Great tonality and detail. Apparently you forgot the "rule" which states that one shouldn't take photos of flowers with b&w film...</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Excellent Work here... I like the frames a lot. Viva la Difference N'est ce pas? While nothing succeeds like success... their impact on design is closely followed as imitation is a high form of flattery. I don't want to disagree .. because I see it basically the same, just what became a standard layout is a paradigm of design finesse by the Pentax, but I see a more evolution of logical function. The Mirandas and the Topcons were following a concept of the Exakta design. I have the SP500 but other famuily members have other models. I'm intrigued by the F... and those later (MX/ME) models are indeed small and handy and light. The next step for me is to get a Takumar! I need one for the SP500. Given the large variety of M42 glass out there I'm seriously deficient in this category.

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Must be Spotmatic Season on this forum! Cool work, <strong>Capital</strong>, I like your gritty style. "Singing Boy" has a sort of surreal charm, and the playground pic is very strong. Beautiful still-life, <strong>John</strong>, enough tonal quality to pass for medium format!</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Sorry Capital, I forgot to compliment your pictures in my previous post. Very nice, and just me, but I like the framing. I never got around to filing my negative holders when I had a darkroom in the 70's, but I do know some people did that.<br>

I remember when the AE came out. A lot of people thought that was the end of the world, not an improvement :-)<br>

Anyway, you and others on here sure made me wish I still had my Pentax's. Now I have to make do with a Nikon F. The Pentax K2 never achieved any great popularity, but I think it's the best camera I ever had.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>chacun à son goût - pourquois non?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The border treatment comes from me filing the neg holder (I print my own work). Now, for better or worse, all of my uncropped photos have this look</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does occur to me that having an "uncropped photo" with this 'feature' does not actually oblige one to scan that part of the image or prevent one from cropping it out in Photoshop or whatever. So it really is a matter of taste, not technology. If you like it, do it; but don't blame it on your negative holder.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>Thanks, Pierre. The first real camera I learned to shoot was an AE-1. Loved it for many years but now I realize it was the beginning of the end of the all-mechanical clockwork cameras...As for making due with a Nikon F, that's hardly something for an amateur -- you need to know what you're doing to take photos with that refined old workhorse. Never used a Pentax K2 but maybe I'll keep an eye out if it's as good as you say.</p>

<p>JDM von W: Did I sound like I was apologizing for my neg holder? I wasn't. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'm really glad to hear it. People <em>should</em> be happy with the choices they make (existentialist morality).<br>

But it did <em>sound</em> like you were saying it couldn't be different because you had filed your negative holder. ;)</p>

[h._p.]

<blockquote>

<p>The Spotmatic was the prototypical 35m SLR</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't agree with that. The first SLR that we'd recognise instantly was the Contax S, from 1949. The first SLR with a 'modern' layout (lever wind, non-rotating shutter dial) might be the Asahi Pentax H2/S2 or it might be the Nikon F. It certainly wasn't the Spotmatic, which wasn't even the first TTL reflex. While the Spottie was still vapourware, Topcon nipped in sharply with the RE-Super.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>I agree with HP: the design and layout of the Spotmatic was preceded by the 1958 Asahi H2 (which I believe Ringo was seen using in A Hard Day's Night). But it's still Asahi's design which became the defacto standard. The Topcon RE Super was way ahead of its time, but its innovations (like the TTL-meter etching on the reflex mirror) never took hold. Also, let's not forget Miranda, the first Japanese SLR with a pentaprism in 1955. And there's much to commend about having the shutter speed controls mounted on the lens mount like the OM1 or on some older Nikons (i.e., the same hand that is used to hold the lens and focus is also used to adjust aperture and shutter speed), but alas, that design element didn't get widely adopted either.<br>

Interesting point about the Topcons and Mirandas being based on the Exacta design. If true, I have to commend the Japanese for greatly improving on the mid-1930s design of the Germans. As someone who owns 2 Exactas, I have to profess that the cameras are well-built but over-engineered and not intuitive to use (much like their cars). The real innovation of all of the Japanese manufacturers is that they took the SLR concept and greatly improved on it such that the SLR came into widespread mainstream use. Too bad the public went from an appreciation of SLRs to an over-reliance on convenience and auto-everything... </p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Thanks for giving me two nice memories! Firstly I was working for Pentax in the UK in the late seventies and we were still seeing a lot of spotmatics around, and secondly we have cousins who have a place on Browning Island. I just love the Muskoka chairs, spent many a happy hour sinking beers in one of those myself.<br>

Spotmatics were beautifully built but I have to say the MX was my favourite, with the 35-70 f2.8 as a walkaround.</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>Canon's FT-QL and TL-QL of that era had a better system for stopping the aperture down for metering and for seeing the depth of field. These Canons also had a better meter battery location and film loading system. <br>

Other than that, their layout was indeed very much like that of the Spotmatics.</p>

 

[capitalq]

<p>Tony: Where's Browning Island? As for the cottage shots, these were actually Muskoka chaors at Lake Muskoka.</p>

<p>Bob: I always wondered why Canon's QL system didn't catch on. Pretty idiot-proof. I agree they had a better mechanism for depth of field and battery placement. But trumping both the Spotmatic and any Canon of this era was the Minolta SRT 101 which offered true open aperture metering years ahead of Canon and Asahi. The Rokkor glass is also pretty sweet and Minolta's mount did not materially change for years....But I better stop now and continue my praises of the SRT series on another thread! </p>