Skip to main content

2016-03-19 A Collecting Tale

 Our Society—The Edmonton Photographic Historical Society—recently had a valued member pass on. His widow asked us if we wanted to have the left-overs of his collection. The family had taken the cameras they valued for their memories and there were over 80 left-overs. 

It was arranged we could look at the different items and bid on anything we thought we could use. The bids were to be three digit numbers we chose and if multiple people had bid on the same item then the bid closest to a random selected number would win the item.

Now to the main thrust of this story. I had noticed three interrelated items I thought could be remixed to solve some of my problems.There was a spare Pentax-A 50 mm f/2 lens. There was a Pentax P3 camera that for some reason had mounted  a Pentax-F 28-80 mm zoom. Then lastly there was a Pentax SF-10 camera with a SMC Pentax 135 mm f/2.5 lens. In an unrelated aside there was also an instruction book for the Pentax SF-10.

“Why should all this matter to anyone?” you ask.

Let me explain.





I had earlier collected a Pentax P3 in a case. It had turned out to be broken. When loaded with the two batteries it requires it refused to light up or fire. So I had hopes this camera would work. But even more importantly, the loose Pentax-A 50 mm f/2 would have been its standard lens as sold. So where does the Pentax-F 28-80 lens it has presently fit?





Well of course it fits the Pentax SF-10, that as offered had a 135 mm f/2.5 mounted. There is absolutely no way that camera had been sold with the 135 mm f/2.5, but every chance the SF-10 had been sold with a 28-80 mm zoom.

So if I “won” the spare 50 mm f/2 and remixed the lenses on the two cameras I would have—

A complete and working Pentax P3

A complete Pentax SF-10 with matching zoom 

I have several SF-10’s, but all sport unmatched—i.e. not Pentax—optics

a Pentax 135 mm f/2.5 lens 

which I don’t have, and a fast 135 mm has its attractions

You may wonder why anyone would have these cameras rigged up as they were offered. Our member had been very active in his church’s productions. He handled their audio-visual production. I imagine that included capturing cast during presentations—hence the 135 mm f/2.5 mounted on the SF-10. The SF-10 does not have to have an auto-focus optic. It works fine with manual focus.

It turns out the Pentax P3 is equally dead (by equally dead I mean it doesn’t light up or fire with batteries installed just like my existing camera). The Pentax SF-10 works fine, and just as fine with the 28-80 mm lens. Seems, according to the instruction book that came with the camera, the standard zoom that came with the camera was a 35-70 instead of the more advanced 28-80 it now sports. It is worth noting the autofocus lenses start at f/3.5 which is at least half the brightness the f/2.5 the 135 mm optic would provide. In the bad old film days candid capture required fast film and fast optics.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2026-03-14 - History and Evolution of the Kodak Logo

  While working as a junior clerk at the Rochester Savings Bank, George Eastman first began commercial production of dry photographic plates in a rented loft of a building in Rochester, New York in April 1880. In the next few years, Eastman became very successful and expanded the company several times. His company started as the Eastman Dry Plate Company in 1881, later became the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company in 1884, and soon after the Eastman Company in 1889. The last name change occurred in 1892, when the Eastman Kodak Company of New York was organized. The company has been called Eastman Kodak Company ever since.  The word "Kodak" was first registered as a trademark in 1888. The letter “K” had been a favorite of Eastman’s, he is quoted as saying, "I devised the name myself. The letter 'K' had been a favorite with me; it seems a strong, incisive sort of letter. It became a question of trying out a great number of combinations of letters that made word...
Post a Comment
Read more

2026-03-20-Manfrotto monopods

  Sometimes collecting is a matter of persistence.       The Manfrotto “GRUPPO” 434SSB monopod (shown top) showed up one day at my local thrift store. They had a price tag of $25 on it. I had bought the lower Manfrotto Compact MMC3-01 monopod at the same thrift store for $3. So I asked, “Why so much?” They answered their “expert” had found it sold for $200 on the internet. I find experts—who almost never clerk in the thrift store, so are unreachable—hard to deal with. There is also the matter someone might actually pay them $25 for a 2.27 kg (5 pound) aluminum pole, so I decided to let the Gods-of-Collecting decide if I was going to ever own it. For weeks I would pick it up, check the price tag to see if they had come to their senses, and return it to the shelf. I did try various clerks to see if they would lower the price, but they said they were not authorized to change prices. I plodded on, week after week without much hope.         ...
Post a Comment
Read more