John, the K1000 uses the same lens mount as the LX that was their professional camera and today still commands some high prices compared with other totl cameras. A number of my students years ago went with the K1000 and the standard lens and their results were excellent. For some reason as time goes on in the hobby side, persons tend to want to get the totl gear thinking it will improve their art. Unless one wants more than a manual camera with an averaging light meter the K1000 meets the needs of probably 99% of the hobbyist market. Professionals usually can justify the need for something more rugged as their systems see much heavier use and less carful handling many times. Once a body has a shutter that is close to accurate and a backplate that will hold the film nearly flat the body has acomplished its basic goal. The visible difference will be more in the lenses attached therafter. I am referring to the technical and not the difference between a good and poor photo from an artist point.
I'll go radical here. I have a Leica CL with the 40mm Summicron-C. If I put the lens on a MP (I have used it on an M6 in a test), and shoot the same subject under the same lighting conditions on the same film from the same brick with the same settings and have the films processed at the same tiem in the same manner, the results are the same. Now admittedly this is a hpothetical as I never have gotten my hands on a MP but did the test with the M6 and used my Weston Ranger meter to eliminate an meter differences between the CL and M6. For those would ask, the internal meters read the same which I was not soure would happen when the test was started. Now admittedly, the CL is not in the same range as a K1000 however, it was the budget Leica.
Thomas, I went to a MF not from a hankering for it but simply because a dealer wanted my 35mm colletion so badly he was willing to sell his first born. My instruction to him was a MF system AND a 35mm system in exchange. It was he who introduced me to the ETRS system with the 35mm back so I had one camera that covered both sizes. We were good friends even before and had long talks about the 35mm vs MF vs large format debate and he got me to understand as a lay person one is not necessarily better than the other for much of my shooting. I also get a Minox ML and LX in the deal. I soon realized that for 90+% of my shooting the ML did everything I needed and I put a LOT of film through it as I did with the LX. The ETRS expanded my photographic horizons and subjects beyond what I was shooting but in the end my Exacta systems and ealrier a Kodak Pony 135 with the Sunny 16 rule taped to the back taught me photography and enough to be able to teach others. The Leica was picked up to help a freind in financial need but otherwise would have lived life without it and happily used the ETRS as both my MF and 35mm system as I do now when the Leica stays home. I'm actually at a point where I am seriously thinking of getting the Rolleiflex 3.5 serviced and selling of the Borinica and using only the Leica and Rolleiflex as each will cover almost all shooting situations. Now admittedly, using the Vioflex on the Leica CL for closeup work is a challenge compared to the ETRS with the extension tubes.
Going further, there is little I can not do with the little Yashica FX-3s sitting in the closet that were my son's before he decided to covet my Olympus DSLR that he "bought me" for a Father's Day present just before HE took a 2 month vacation in California. I got to see it just for a few minutes before he took it to his room for safe keeping and I was reminded of it when I got MY credit card statement.
