More Than Meets the Eye? - Sleeper SLRs

    In automotive circles, the "sleeper" has a long and roguish history. Take a plain-Jane car and throw some serious performance bits under the hood and prey upon the unsuspecting (bwahahaha). A frumpy four-door with a quiet (at least at idle) exhaust makes it even tastier :-). When it comes to old SLRs, there is no such post-purchase hopping-up per se, but there were enough models that followed the spirit of the sleeper as far as looks and features went to make things interesting. The bonus today is that you can snag one of these soporific snappers for a fair bit less than their more-celebrated contemporaries, while giving up very little (if any) outright performance. Now, if I happen to leave out your favorite flies-under-the-radar film-burner, don't get uptight. Feel free to mention my misses in the comments, and who knows, maybe we will have to do a sequel. So...in no particular order...

​   Pentax ME super - The diminutive dimensions and push-button shutter speed adjustment of the ME super are an immediate turn-off for some analog aficionados, and it has thus been relegated far behind more-popular Pentaxes (such as the evergreen K1000 and the fully-mechanical, manual exposure-only MX) as far as perceived desirability goes. But what do you actually get if you are willing to look under the hood? Here are a few highlights:

• The Seiko MFC-E2 vertical-running shutter is rock-solid reliable. You get a nice range of speeds from 4 sec. to 1/2000 sec. + Bulb and flash sync. @ 1/125 sec. In contrast, both the K1000 and MX run from 1 sec. to 1/1000 + Bulb and flash sync. @ 1/60. The 1/125 sec. & Bulb speeds in the ME super are both mechanical, so if the batteries did happen to pack it in (and you had no spares with you, for shame ;-)), the camera would still be operational. If you can wrap your mind around the UP/DOWN push-button shutter speed adjustment, it is quite intuitive and at least as quick as (if not actually faster than) using a traditional dial. There is no fixed stop in either direction, meaning that you can instantly jump from 1/2000 to 4 sec. by pressing the UP button or vice versa with the DOWN button.
• The ME super has one of the best enthusiast-level viewfinders in a manual focus SLR. Aside from the MX viewfinder (95% coverage @ 0.97x magnification w/ a 50mm lens) and the original ME (92% @ 0.97x), the ME super's 92% coverage @ 0.95x magnification is tops among all enthusiast manual focus Pentax bodies and is very nice to use. The only caveat is that if you require more eye-relief (because you wear glasses, etc.), none of the advanced M-bodies will permit you to see the whole viewfinder frame. Such is the trade-off for that nice big magnification figure. The ME super is a bit more forgiving than the ME/MX due to its slightly smaller coverage and magnification. The three-color LED display is very straightforward to use as well. Speeds from 1/2000 to 1/60 are shown in green, speeds below 1/60 are shown in yellow (to alert the shooter to possible camera shake at such speeds), and there are red LEDs to indicate over- or under-exposure, and when exposure compensation has been engaged.
• Small doesn't necessarily = cheap. Although it is among the smallest and lightest MF SLRs ever produced, the ME super is a pretty dense little rig. Of course, to shave nearly 200 grams from the Spotmatic and K-bodies, Pentax made some sacrifices with the M-series. On the ME super the top plate went to plastic and the metal bottom plate is one of the thinnest I have seen on any SLR. Which means that you rarely will find an ME super (or any other non-plastic-encrusted M-series body for that matter) that does not have a few dents or dings in the bottom plate. But this does not affect the performance of the camera (remember the sleeper motif :-)). Now, it may very well be that you find the M-series to be too small to be comfortable (I know that I still slightly prefer the K-bodies' footprint, myself), so make sure you try before you buy. But if small and lightweight are big pros for you, the ME super along with SMC-M or SMC-A lenses makes for a potent package.
• The Gallium Arsenide Phosphide Diode metering cells were top-of-the-line in their day. They offered fast and very stable performance and were in some ways slightly superior to the Silicon Photo Diodes used by most other manufacturers at that time. In years to come, Pentax dropped GPDs from their SLRs in favor of SPDs, mainly to cut costs. 
• Functionally, the ME super also has a shorter winding stroke than either the MX or K1000, making it a touch more responsive, something that most photogs are willing to live with ;-).

    Okay, so those are some decent features, but there has to be a catch or two, right? Right. Here you go:

• No aperture setting display in the viewfinder (only the KX, K2DMD, MX, and Super Program had such a feature among enthusiast Pentax MF bodies, and you will pay more for them, in general ;-), not to mention the much more costly pro-level LX)
• No interchangeable focusing screens (only the MX and LX offered this feature from Pentax)
• No dedicated multiple exposure function (only available on the LX)
• No mirror lock-up (available on the, KX, K2, and LX)
• No Depth of Field (DOF) preview (available on the KM, KX, K2, MX, Super Program, Program Plus, & LX)

    Honorable Mention -  For the sake of thoroughness, the progenitor of the ME super, the plain ME, offers an even lower profile among photographers. Lacking the manual mode (no push buttons, even) of the super, the aperture-priority-only ME also made do with the earlier Seiko MFC shutter (8 - 1/1000 sec. + Bulb & 1/100 sec. flash sync.), and it used a more basic LED display (only one color - red) in the viewfinder. It did, however, sport a metal top plate, 0.97x versus 0.95x magnification in the viewfinder (same as the MX, but with 92% coverage like the super), and mechanical backup setting of 1/100 sec. + Bulb. Regular-octane MEs can be had for a song and if you are primarily an aperture-priority shooter, it could be a viable alternative to the super.

    Between the original ME (around 1.6 million in four years) and the super (around 2.3 million in seven years), Pentax punched out nearly four million copies in 11 years, making for easy pickings today on the used market. The combination of a great viewfinder, shutter, and meter, all wrapped in a tidy package, makes a compelling case for these petite Pentaxes.

    Minolta XD-5 - As a general rule with Minoltas, having a "5" in the model number designated a somewhat stripped-down version of their top-end enthusiast body (which often used "7"). In 1979, two years after introducing the original XD (aka XD-7 in Europe & XD-11 in North America), Minolta brought out the XD-5. So where did Minolta trim features with little brother? 

• No aperture or set shutter speed readouts in the viewfinder
• No built-in eyepiece shutter
• No film safe load indicator
• Glass-reinforced polycarbonate top & bottom plates versus metal 
• The XD-5 was only available in silver, while the loftier XDs could be had in both silver or black. Black was viewed as a "pro" finish :-) 

    The remarkable thing is just how minor the deletions were. This is not to understate the convenience and speed advantages of the full-information viewfinder displays and handiness of the eyepiece shutters on the higher-end XDs. But overall, especially given the current prices for XD-5s, you are getting an awful lot for your money. Here is a list of what you still get:

• The same shutter: the tried-and-true Seiko MFC 
• The same meter: an excellent SPD centerweighted unit
• The same 94% coverage @ 0.87x magnification viewfinder with snappy Acute Matte focusing screen
• The same controls for shutter speed, exposure mode, DOF preview, exposure compensation (the XD-5 actually beats early-production XDs with the location of this control), and self-timer
• The same chassis and build quality levels. Regarding the basic chassis, it stayed in production for two decades, even though the XD's were discontinued by Minolta in 1983. Leica used it for their R4 through R7 SLRs which lasted until 1996. That seems to be decent testimony to the soundness of its design :-).

    Honorable Mention - The generation-older XE-5. If you prefer full-size, heavy metal SLRs, the XE-5 occupied the same slot in Minolta's lineup in its day as the more-compact, 200 gram-lighter XD-5. It used the same superb Copal-Leitz shutter as its top-end XE siblings did, and oozes quality in its construction and operation. The XD-5 offers: snappier focusing, a better meter, multiple exposures, shutter-priority mode, and all in a smaller package. But you can snag an XE-5 for half the money and if you prefer the larger form factor, it's a no-brainer :-). 

    Nikon FM & FE - If ever there were a couple of cameras that epitomized understated appearance coupled with some serious under-the-hood performance, this brace of Nikons fits the bill. With nothing but the classic Nikon script embossed on their prism housings, Nikon's first foray into more-compact SLRs sported some of the most sano styling ever seen on any of their ilk. No model designation on the front of the camera, just the tiniest of scripts beside the serial number that spends most of its time under your right thumb. Their overall size and weight are decidedly middle-of-the-road for late-'70s SLRs, so that also served to add to the wallflower impression. And today, their specifications pale in comparison somewhat (upon cursory examination) to their monogrammed FM2(N) & FE2 offspring, further submerging their profile. With nearly identical layouts, you have the choice of a fully mechanical shutter and manual exposure (FM) versus an electronically-controlled shutter with aperture-priority and manual exposure modes (FE).

    But what do they lack compared to their more-advanced progeny? Not much on the whole, but possibly enough to swing you toward the newer versions if they will meet an actual need on your part:

• The most noticeable difference is the shutter. The FM2/FE2 were the first SLRs to have 1/4000 sec. as their top speed. The originals topped out at the common 1/1000 sec. That extra speed can come in very handy, especially when you are trying to maintain shallower DOF in bright light. Alternatively, a Neutral Density (ND) filter can be used to the same effect (albeit not as conveniently). The flash sync. speed also was bumped to 1/250 sec. (aside from early FM2s @ 1/200 sec.) from 1/125 sec. on the originals. Nikon redesigned the mirror shock absorber assembly also added a flywheel-style mirror dampener to the FM2/FE2 to cope with the greater speed/vibration imposed by the higher-speed shutter versus the original air damper of the FM/FE.
• If you are a heavy flash user, the FE2 featured TTL flash metering, which neither its predecessors nor its near-twin the FM2(N) did.
• The FM2/FE2 also gained an automatic meter shutoff after 30 sec. to improve battery life. With the original FM/FE, as long as the film wind lever was pulled out to the ON position for the meter, the meter would draw power.
• The "+", "O", and "-" symbols in the FM2(N)'s viewfinder were now backlit with LEDs to make them more visible in low light conditions

     At first glance, you might think it would be a given to go with a second-gen version. But here are a couple of things to bear in mind:

• Cost - you will generally pay at least twice as much for an FM2/FE2 than for an FM/FE in equivalent condition. That alone can give one pause, particularly if that 1/1000 sec. top speed is good enough for your needs.
• Lens Compatibility - one feature unique to the FM/FE (and their full-size counterparts of the same era, the Nikkormat FT3 and Nikon EL2) is the flip-up AI (Automatic Aperture Indexing) lever. The only other Nikon bodies to offer this feature were the professional F3 & F4 models (Nikon would modify the F5 or F6 upon customer request). What this means in practical terms is that you can mount unmodified pre-AI Nikkor lenses (built from 1959 to 1977) on these bodies. If you try that with the fixed AI tabs on the FM2/FE2, there will be consequences ;-) (read: damage). So if you use (or plan to try out) pre-AI lenses, the FM or FE might just be the ticket for you (stop-down metering is required).

    Now comes the hard part. FM or FE? Because the FE (1978) was introduced a year after the FM it had the benefit of some improvements adopted within that interval. Such as:

• Interchangeable focusing screens - there were three screens available: the standard K (split-image w/ microprism collar, matte field, and metering circle), the type B (full matte w/ metering circle), and type E (etched grid on matte field w/ metering circle). This feature was later incorporated on the FM2. As a side note, the newer, brighter K2, B2, E2, K3, B3, and E3 focusing screens introduced with the FM2/FE2 and FM3A models can be used in the original FE with an exposure compensation of approximately +1 to + 1 1/2 stops.
• An improved multiple exposure system that can be used one-handed, instead of requiring two.
• A flash-ready LED in the viewfinder. This would be added to the updated FM2.
• There were some internal improvements for reliability incorporated into the FE from the start and from serial # 3xxxxxx up on the FM

    For me, it is easier to make fine exposure adjustments with the match needle display of the FE versus the 3 - diode display of the FM, which can be anywhere from 1/5 to a full stop worth of difference when two LEDs are lit at the same time. This is not super-critical, merely a matter of personal preference. As a side note, the FM did use GPD cells for metering versus the SPDs of the FE. It seems that Nikon was of like mind with Pentax in using GPDs in the late 1970's, but by the time the FM2 came along, they had also ditched them for SPDs. Again, in the real world, both work equally well. On a final note, electronically controlled shutters do tend to maintain their accuracy for longer than mechanical shutters do. But, either way, both are very capable and it really will come down to your own priorities and preferences.

    Canon FTb & FTb-N - When it comes to popularity among classic mechanical SLRs, the Canon FTb trails its more-lionized Pentax (Spotmatic & K1000), Olympus (OM-1), Minolta (SRT-101), and Nikon (Nikkormat FTn & FT2) contemporaries. It could be that Canon's four-decade plus run of sales leadership also makes for a bit of fatigue on the part of prospective SLR purchasers who are not only looking for performance, but also character. Especially during the 1990s did Canon become the poster child (somewhat deservedly) for capable but soulless machines. The fact that they killed off their FD lineup over 30 years ago, coupled with the enormous success of their EOS SLRs, has also served to put such cameras as the FTb further out of sight and out of mind. But if you were to actually compare one to its aforementioned rivals, what would you conclude? That's for you to answer :-). Here's what I have found: 

    The FTb-N was the final incarnation of a design that started out in 1966. Eight years of fine-tuning and fettling produced a very refined and capable machine that also seems to retain character and identity (for me, at least :-)). The FTb-N gained a shutter-speed readout in the viewfinder, plastic-tipped advance lever, a re-designed F1-style self-timer/MLU lever, and finer knurling on the shutter-speed dial for better control. The damping of all of the controls is excellent, and the whole unit has a cohesive, quality feel. While designed to use an obsolete 1.35V mercury cell to power the meter, FTbs can be easily converted to use modern 1.55V silver oxide cells with modest soldering skills. If that is too tall an order, you can always use a handheld meter, or Sunny 16 :-).

    Canon punched out around 1.8 million FTb/FTb-Ns so they remain plentiful on the used market. You can grab untested bodies for $50 USD fairly regularly. Fully-tested, meter-converted examples will run in the $150 USD region. They can be still be worked on by any qualified independent repair person. If you have been thinking about a Pentax K1000 or Spotmatic, Minolta SR-T, or a Nikkormat FTn, do yourself a favor and check out an FTb-N, you may just find that it checks off as many or more boxes. Not to mention that there is plenty of bargain FD glass out there to throw in front of one ;-).

    Contax 139Q/Yashica FX-D Quartz - Slipping away from the Big 5 for the first time, brings us to the equivalent of Acura/Honda (feel free to substitute any other 2-tier car company ;-)) in the SLR world. Nowhere was this overlap more apparent than with these two models. The Contax debuted first in 1979 with the Yashica following 18 months later. Nowadays both cameras are under-the-radar deals (the Contax RTS family was more-hyped) with the Yashica especially being viewed as nothing much to write home about. In reality, a similar situation to the Minolta XD-7/-11 vs. XD-5 exists:

• Same chassis
• Same shutter: vertical-travel 1/1000 - 11 sec. in Auto & 1/1000 - 1 sec. in Manual
• Same meter: SPD with a range of EV 1 - 18 @ ISO 100
• Same viewfinder: 95% coverage @ 0.86x magnification
• The same "real-time" shutter release as the pro-level Contax RTS
• Self-time & AE-lock functions were identical as well

    Obviously, to differentiate the two cameras, the 139Q had to have some advantages over its younger, less-elegantly-styled sibling. Such as:

• TTL flash metering
• Multiple-exposure capability
• DOF preview
• A wider ISO range (12 - 3200 vs. 25 - 1600)
• Ball-bearing film advance and a better mirror dampener
• Metal top and bottom plates. (The FX-D used a glass-fiber reinforced polycarbonate top plate. Ironically, this made it more dent-resistant than the 139Q, but no Contax user would dare settle for such an egregious violation of proper camera construction at that time ;-)) 

    The 139Q was positioned to compete with Nikon FEs and Minolta XDs, while the FX-D was slotted versus Canon AE-1s, Minolta XGs, Pentax ME supers, and the like. No other models in the two lines ever converged so closely again, as Yashica was pushed further to the consumer end and Contax sought to preserve its higher-toned image. Today, both pull off the sleeper motif very effectively, due to their disintegrating leatherette coverings. That serves to push their profiles even lower (nothing that a new covering in your choice of color and texture can't fix ;-)). You can grab the Yashica for about half the cost of the 139Q, if you can live with the feature deletions. Both cameras feel lovely in my hands and are very responsive once you get on to the metering procedure. Something to watch for on the 139Q is sticky shutter-release magnets, especially on serial numbers below 150xxx. Fortunately, they can be cleaned with modest repair skills. The FX-D does not seem to suffer from this issue as much, probably due to its later introduction as a shroud was fitted to protect the magnets from lubricant splatter during 139Q production. Even though the Yashica shipped with its own name-brand lenses (another case of underrated capabilities), there is nothing stopping you from slapping some of that famed Carl Zeiss C-Y mount glass in front of the lowly FX-D. And who is going to be able to tell the difference in your pics ;-)?

    Pentax SP1000 - This K1000 predecessor and stripped-down version of the original Spotmatic could be just the ticket for someone who prefers a slower pace and enjoys the feel of a simple yet precision instrument. Like the K1000, there is no self-timer, it sports the classic Pentax "center-the-needle" metering display, and the simplest of control layouts. But the SP1000 has a couple of advantages over its progeny:

• DOF preview with every Super Takumar or SMC Takumar lens
• A slew of M42-mount lens choices, many of which are wonderful bargains today.

    Of course, lens changes and stop-down metering take a bit more time, but that might even be preferable for certain users :-). Even though the SP1000 was designed for 1.35V mercury batteries, thanks to Pentax' bridge circuitry, a modern silver oxide 386 cell is a drop in replacement (albeit with an o-ring to center it in the chamber), with no meter re-calibration needed. Another point in the SP1000's favor is build quality. It is pure early-'70s Spotmatic, which is to say rock-solid. Now, the early K1000s were pretty much the same, but the final 15 years or so of K1000 production saw repeated cuts to build quality to keep the price at entry-level. By the 1990s, they were a far cry from their forebears when it came to quality. As for the SP1000, there were about 250,000 made from 1974-77, and you can often find them with an excellent 55/1.8 or 55/2 Super or SMC Takumar lens attached. The trick is not to pay K1000-level prices for one ;-). One thing to bear in mind is that if you like to use flash, the SP1000 has no built-in hot-shoe. It requires the attachment of a removable cold-shoe and a PC-sync cord to power the flash unit. A point for the K1000 :-).

  Wrap-Up

     So, could one of these somnolent SLRs slide their way into your hands? If you value results more than panache, do yourself a favor and take one for a spin. You may be pleasantly surprised (and have more moolah for another lens or a trip further afield than usual). I think I need a nap now ;-). 

  References:
​
     Various User Manuals @ https://www.butkus.org/chinon/index.html