So, If you could spend a day with an old classic...

[Corto]

I ran a roll through a K1000 I fell into cheaply and, although it doesn't do anything wrong (except the meters tendency to work only intermittently with my example), personally, I've found it possibly the blandest camera I've ever used.
Regards,
Brett

Cameras are tools, Inanimate objects.

And yes, the K1000 is bland.

But for some reason the utter simplicity of it is what (at least in my case) makes it such a joy to use.

That said.....The sRt is VERY similar. It really is a hard choice for me when I leave the house to choose which one.

But it sure is a nice problem to have!

 

[SausalitoDog]

I guess it would have to be the pentax. Never really owned either of them but back (way back) in the day, pentax really had the name.

I've sold off all of my cameras - first when I went digital with a nikon D1, I sold all my film equipment; since then, I've been pretty brutal about getting each one on ebay as I replace it (the value of digital drops precipitously if you aren't quick to sell).

But the only camera i REALLY regret selling is my first one - Nikon S2 with a 50mm f1.4 super sharp lens. Sold it for about 5x what I paid for it, but I still regret it now ... Sigh... Oh well...

Tom

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Cameras are tools, Inanimate objects.

And yes, the K1000 is bland.

But for some reason the utter simplicity of it is what (at least in my case) makes it such a joy to use.

That said.....The sRt is VERY similar. It really is a hard choice for me when I leave the house to choose which one.

But it sure is a nice problem to have!

Sure--I can see why you would feel that way. What you say is true and yes, as I said, it doesn't really do anything wrong and I've never heard any real complaints about Pentax lenses. There was no chemistry with it for me unfortunately, as competent as it undoubtedly is. And my perspective on SLRs is that if I am going to use a relatively modern Japanese SLR instead of one of my old German ones, it had better have some conveniences such as a timer and especially a DOF preview, because otherwise I may as well use one of the many 1950s or 1960s models I have.

The absence of a self timer is a relatively minor annoyance (I don't mind using a tripod sometimes and the timer, if fitted, is always on the camera whereas your cable may be at home, in the car, in the wrong bag etc. etc. so one is nice to have). I do struggle with the lack of a DOF preview though. It's a model which is frequently recommended to students of photography and surely one of the main reasons an SLR would be selected is to take advantage of DOF preview and for the student to actually see the effect of stopping down, etc. Don't get me wrong; my favourite all time camera is probably my Rolleiflex which has no DOF preview ever (technically not quite true--there was an uncommon clip on accessory viewing lens diaphragm for the older models). But if I'm going to use a modern SLR with electronic metering it had better have a DOF function.

Bear in mind this is written by someone whose own idea of a great SLR is a Zeiss Ikon Contaflex or Voigtlaender Bessamatic with lens shutter and no instant return mirror, enough to send most photographers running away screaming in horror, in 2012. Neither of those have a DOF preview, either, but that's OK--although I'd love it if they did, they compensate for its absence in other ways and with their own charms.
Best,
Brett

 

[sebastel]

pentax.

i used an SP1000, and both SR-T100 and 303. the minoltas i remember as clumsy, the pentax i remember as simple (like in "easy to use")

 

[clayne]

Both are good. Rokkor glass is usually better though. I have both.

 

[Trius]

Definitely Minolta.

 

[Corto]

Both cameras will do fine but this Pentax setup is a bit more classic then Minolta as Minolta is paired with lens from later X series of cameras.

Minolta srT mc-II, 1977-1980

MD Rokkor-X, 1977-1979

it's a correct setup.