Would You Buy a Digital Pentax K1000?

[wgerrard]

I ask if a digital interchangeable lens camera like the K1000 would be successful today?

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?)

Or, in matters digital, do you think in for a penny, for a pound, and happily leverage every automated feature on offer?

I'm in the second camp. I view and distribute photos online. I'm more interested in improving the quality of image displays on laptop screens than I am in how good a print looks. I like to think I know enough to know when to override a camera's choice of shutter speed and aperture. But I also know that, almost all the time, I won't need to do that. And don't even ask if I can better a digital's auto ISO choices and, critically, it's focus skills.

So, no. I would not buy a digital Pentax K1000.

Would you?

 

[wblynch]

What pushed be back into film is the lack of manual control and usability on digital cameras.

Going back to metal and glass, all manual, even mechanical shutters, has been a true joy to me.

I love film and the process but most of all I love using those wonderful cameras.

I know that film won't be around too much longer (for all practicality) but I hate to think about throwing the vintage cameras away.

My wish would be to have a full-frame digital sensor that would load into a 35mm camera.

 

[Steve M.]

I wouldn't buy a K1000 even if it were a film camera!

I never understood the attraction of these things, as there are lots of much better cameras to be found at less money. Like wblynch said, using old cameras that are scale focus and require manual hand metering hasn't made any difference in my ability to get the shot I'm after. You would think an AF/AE camera would be much faster to shoot, and it is a little faster if you're burning thru film, but for whatever reasons there are, using old cameras w/ no automation is pretty darn quick.

 

[TXForester]

Sure....as long as it's an OM-1. 😀 I like the idea of a simple camera. Most of the stuff on today's cameras are extras. A lot of great photos come messing with the basic settings (shutter speed, aperture, and ISO). We don't need most of the other stuff. That's what Photoshop is for.

Make a simple camera (hopefully it will be inexpensive too) that gives you the above. A big bright viewfinder, suitable for manual focus (built in split image for focusing). It'd be great if the mount is designed to take old lenses without an adapter. Heck if it is designed right (aperture on lens not coupled to body) you could theoretically design one body and order it with the mount of your choice. That could keep it cheaper, by making it appeal to a wider range of users.

I'll now take off my rose-colored glasses.

 

[rover]

Just give me an easy to use meter and ff sensor and I would be in.

 

[charjohncarter]

I wouldn't buy a K1000 even if it were a film camera!

I never understood the attraction of these things, as there are lots of much better cameras to be found at less money. Like wblynch said, using old cameras that are scale focus and require manual hand metering hasn't made any difference in my ability to get the shot I'm after. You would think an AF/AE camera would be much faster to shoot, and it is a little faster if you're burning thru film, but for whatever reasons there are, using old cameras w/ no automation is pretty darn quick.

I didn't understand your last sentence, but I bought one of these K1000 (film) for my son in 1984. It was $99 lens and body. He had a needle match meter with this camera. But I made him use a hand meter. I'm sure he cheated, but still he learned the photography principals. He still has the camera, still uses it as does his wife. You can run the camera down but he learned from his mistakes, now they just push the delete button without thinking.

But back to digital. I would really like to have a digital camera that is like the Olympus 35RC. A little auto, lots of manual, and plenty of easy flash syncing.

 

[jsrockit]

Yes, I'm a big fan of this camera... it was my first camera. I own one still even if I don;t use it. If it were digital, I'd use it. That said, it could be any old all manual metal camera (F3, FM2, Canon F1, Olympus OM, etc) instead of the Pentax. I'd just love a digital SLR that had old school control and manual focus.

 

[Mr_Toad]

.

As long as folks are dissing the camera I learned on, I wouldn't buy a digital Leica, either.

So there! Nyah!

 

[Johann Espiritu]

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?)

I think I just did (got an M9 about two months ago).

 

[DamenS]

You've pretty much described the Epson RD1, Leica M8, 8.2 and 9 there. They all allow manual selection of aperture and shutter speed and force you to focus manually. I'd say they've been quite successful - so there is irrefutable evidence that such a camera would be (in fact, is) popular today.

 

[StillKicking]

The point about the Pentax K1000 was that it was an entry level SLR with a great lens at a great price point. Neither the Epson RD1 nor Leica M9 were intended to be entry level cameras.. far from it!!

It would interesting to see if a simple all manual (retro styled) entry level digital SLR in the $500 price range would sell. Could this be the makings of a new business?

By the way I still have my K1000, my first real camera, which was my birthday present back in 1975. Battered and bruised as it is it still works fine.

 

[f16sunshine]

I would buy one. Used and discounted after it spent 2 years on the first owners shelf. Just like all my other cameras 😛
A match needle metered RAW Digital camera would be great fun.

 

[DamenS]

The point about the Pentax K1000 was that it was an entry level SLR with a great lens at a great price point. Neither the Epson RD1 nor Leica M9 were intended to be entry level cameras.. far from it!!

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.

 

[ChrisN]

Actually, any of the recent Pentax dSLRs are pretty close. Just mount the old manual lense, set the dial to M, and use stop-down metering with a display in the viewfinder, same as the old Spotmatic. And for a bonus, you can always mount the autofocus lenses and set the whole show to auto. Best of both worlds!

 

[nikon_sam]

Sure...the only problem that the K1000 had was that after 25-30 years of abuse by their owners they seem to fall apart...if they could figure out why that happens and fix it, I'm in...😀😉🙄😀

 

[jsrockit]

Sure...the only problem that the K1000 had was that after 25-30 years of abuse by their owners they seem to fall apart...if they could figure out why that happens and fix it, I'm in...😀😉🙄😀

25-30 years on a cheap camera and you're complaining? 😱

 

[f16sunshine]

The owners fall apart too 😉

 

[ruby.monkey]

I'd buy a digital MX. Is that close enough?

 

[Steve Bellayr]

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.

 

[nikon_sam]

I'd buy a digital MX. Is that close enough?

Now your talking...