Would You Buy a Digital Pentax K1000?

[Gary E]

I am not impressed with the Pentax K1000. The Spotmatic was better. What you are relating is an SLR similiar in design to the Leica M9. I, personally, would not be adverse to a digital Nikon F3HP as I believe that the Nikon F3HP is the closest SLR camera to the Leica M series.

If they ever made a Nikon F3HP-D it would end the digital world for me as far as I'm concerned; heck even a F2-D would do it. I'm currently re-enjoying the F3 again after a brief visit at the repair shop. This along with my M4-2 and a fridge full of film will continue to be enough for me till the digital eyeball cam comes out or till film is no longer made (which ever comes first). 😎

 

[NickTrop]

Many, many users kinda already do this... I really don't see the difference between what the OP is describing and using legacy glass that doesn't autofocus on a digital camera. And simply keeping your cameras in AP, SP or manual mode... My answer is "no" because I don't have to use the features that are provided but would rather have them than not. I'm mostly an AP shooter, seldom futz with anything other than manual white balance and ISO.

 

[redisburning]

Give me a FF OM-1 or FM2 and I'd be ok with it.

No lcd. Center weighted metering and raw only.

 

[tunalegs]

Would you buy a digital -- SLR or RF -- that allowed you to set aperture and shutter speed and forced you to focus manually?

I use my digital rebel like that. I only recently noticed I can turn auto-focus on and it will focus itself.

I have no idea what all the modes on the dial thingy mean. Who has time for all that BS? I just wanted to take pictures. 😀

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I wouldn't buy any digital camera these days, but much less a digital camera lacking autoexposure. And a 1/1000th top shutter speed would be poor too, considering it's a DSLR...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[wgerrard]

But that was not the original poster's point, or question, at all. He was asking whether you would be willing to use a digital camera with limited features and the requirement for manual focus. I don't recall price having been brought into the equation prior to your post.

I tied it to the K1000, i.e., an inexpensive camera. Leica's digitals don't play here, limited functionality and all, because of price. I don't believe people spend several thousand dollars on a Leica just to set focus and aperture themselves. The RD-1 was arguably a commercial failure.

I think such a camera would be a total commerical fiasco. As long as I can turn off, ignore, or use digital options as I choose, I'm happy. I want *more* capability, especially connectivity. E.g., I can't wait to use SD cards with wifi and push files back to a server while I'm out shooting.

 

[Spicy]

full frame with low megapixel count (low light++) that only produces RAW files
swappable focus screens (standard is split prism focus screen with microprism)
manual focus
manual aperture on lens
manual shutter speed dial on top (MAYBE change the shutter speed select to thumb wheel)
iso dial (maybe on the bottom of the camera just to keep things nostalgic)
no LCD on the back
small body

GENIUS




if nikon just jammed a D2 or D3 FX sensor into an F body and filled the rest of the space with battery, i'd buy it in a heartbeat

 

[DamenS]

I tied it to the K1000, i.e., an inexpensive camera. Leica's digitals don't play here, limited functionality and all, because of price. I don't believe people spend several thousand dollars on a Leica just to set focus and aperture themselves. The RD-1 was arguably a commercial failure.

I think such a camera would be a total commerical fiasco. As long as I can turn off, ignore, or use digital options as I choose, I'm happy. I want *more* capability, especially connectivity. E.g., I can't wait to use SD cards with wifi and push files back to a server while I'm out shooting.

Actually your first post was entirely unclear (certainly not in any way explicate) about price being a determining factor which would preclude cameras such as the Leica or Epson digitals from consideration in answering your question - whereas you were explicit about aperture and shutter speed selection and manual focus being your determinants.

In fact, you actually asked a very specific self-contained question, which you even gave a paragraph to itself:

"Would you buy a digital -- SLR or RF -- that allowed you to set aperture and shutter speed and forced you to focus manually? And did nothing else? (Let's assume it produces RAW files, since conversion to JPEG is a frill, right?)"

This does not mention price. If you meant price to be included in the answer to that particular question you would have said "Would you buy a CHEAP digital ..."

If you only meant your question to apply to an exact digital replication of the K1000 (which would then be implicitly cheap because the film K1000 was cheap) then you would not have included rangefinders in the above question as the K1000 was not a rangefinder. :bang:

Then again, you did say a camera "that allowed you to set aperture and shutter speed" rather than "that REQUIRED you to set aperture and shutter speed" so I'm guessing clarity of expression is not your strongest point.


Anyway, now that we have established you meant only CHEAP digital slrs or rangefinders which allow/require you to manually focus and select aperture and shutter speed the question becomes even EASIER to answer:

People have shown there is a huge market for expensive versions of this type of camera (such as the Leica M8 and M9). If people could get something like an M9, but have it be CHEAP as well, there would be a HUUUGE market for it, it would be one of the best selling cameras on the market by far !!!!

 

[drewbarb]

How ever you feel about it, haven't we been talking about this camera for years now?

 

[ruby.monkey]

I would, however, sell my grandmother for a digital SLR with the control layout of a Pentax 645N. Automation of what I want, when I want it, and without having to remember some arcane setting or go grubbing through another incomprehensible menu. The need to choose a shooting mode explicitly is one of the worst features I've encountered on most modern(ish) cameras.

 

[gavinlg]

I would buy an 'x100' style digital slr IF it had a rear LCD. No lcd, not interested when it comes to digital cameras.

Also, it would have to be full frame, UNLESS it had lenses designed for an aps-c sensor.

 

[btgc]

How K1000D would look like? Needle match meter in dim VF of crop DSLR? It would have speeds knob on top and lenses with aperture ring - or adjust exposure with controls like they are created now?

In my understanding entry level DSLRs with kit zoom are K1000's of today.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I tied it to the K1000, i.e., an inexpensive camera. Leica's digitals don't play here, limited functionality and all, because of price. I don't believe people spend several thousand dollars on a Leica just to set focus and aperture themselves. The RD-1 was arguably a commercial failure.

I think such a camera would be a total commerical fiasco. As long as I can turn off, ignore, or use digital options as I choose, I'm happy. I want *more* capability, especially connectivity. E.g., I can't wait to use SD cards with wifi and push files back to a server while I'm out shooting.

Dear Bill,

I did.

Rather than a 'digital K1000' I'd prefer a 'digital Nikon F' or better still a 'digital Alpa 35mm', the latter because the very shallow flange/film (sensor) distance allows the use of an enormous range of lenses on adapters.

As for the point that Nick made explicitly and you make implicitly, that you don't have to use all the features on an electronic wonder, well, it's true that you don't -- but it's also true that the difference between an electronic wonder and the kind of camera suggested in the original post is akin to the difference between a 1955 Triumph TR with a manual gearbox and a 1955 Cadillac with a slushbox. Sure you can select the gears on the Cadillac, but it's not the same as driving the TR. The TR is smaller and lighter, too, and goes where you point it, when you point it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

What's this crazy talk of a digital camera with interchangeable lenses and complete manual control?

 

[Waus]

I would buy an digital Nikon FM2 in an heartbeat-but probably that will never happen...

 

[rogerzilla]

If you believe Erwin Puts, AF is not as accurate as MF. I'm not sure about that (phase detection AF is very accurate indeed) but AF on small digicams is terrible, often picking the wrong subject or hunting around.

 

[Griffin]

+1 on the digital mx, but auto-exposure would be nice. My main gripe with DSLR's is that they are butt-ugly lumps of plastic overcrammed with features we'll never need. It seems so easy, just leave all the dials where they are. They could even keep the film advance lever to cock the shutter like the RD-1. Make it metal, keep it simple and I'll buy it in a heartbeat if the price is right.

 

[Trius]

I wouldn't buy a digital K1000, but I would buy an OM-1D. In less than a heartbeat. 😀 😀 😀

 

[Teuthida]

While mychoice for a simple all-mechanical camera would be a plain prismed Nikon F, yes, I would use an equivalent digital version, and in fact I do when I use my M8.

The M8 is a great little camera. While the 'cats and kids' Leicaphiles quibble about IQ and crop factor and debate the best way to remove fingerprint smudges from black paint bodies, I suggest you actually try using one. You'll love it.

 

[Trius]

As long as I can turn off, ignore, or use digital options as I choose, I'm happy. I want *more* capability, especially connectivity. E.g., I can't wait to use SD cards with wifi and push files back to a server while I'm out shooting.

For me if it's not shaped and configured like an OM, with exactly the same hand feel, it's not a winner. My Konica T4 comes pretty close, but the meter display isn't as good, IMO. I've not used an FM-2, but those feel good.

Now the SD card with WiFi is intriguing ... though I actually enjoy the anticipation of developing film and, often, the surprises from the rolls that were exposed *cough* a few "months" ago *cough*.