Pentax k1000?

[Roger Cole]

According to Wikipedia: "Production of the largely hand assembled camera was moved from Japan, first to Hong Kong in 1978 and then to China in 1990, to keep labor costs down. The "Asahi" name and "AOCo" logo was removed from the pentaprism cover to de-emphasize the company name in keeping with the rest of the "Pentax" line. The meter components changed as Asahi Optical searched for suitable supplies. The metal in the wind shaft was downgraded from steel. Cheaper plastic was substituted for the originally aluminum top and bottom plates and aluminum and steel film rewind assembly. Note that the use of lighter plastic lowered the weight of the Chinese-assembled K1000s to 525 g."

I bought my K1000 in 84 and it is built like a tank, no plastic parts on it anywhere, except the take up spool. Even according to the description from Wikipedia, it should have come from Hong Kong, but it has the Asahi name on it. I had a ME Super too, that seemed to be very plastic like. I kept the K1000 and gave the ME Super to my niece. My K1000 replaced my Spotmatic that I got in 68, and to me they both seem to weight the same and have the same quality. Sadly, the Spotmatic was worn out and given to a friend of mine who repaired cameras to use for parts. Hope some of it lives on.

Roger, now on the MX, I found one that I am in love with. Just don't need another camera right now. But, does yours have any plastic stuff on it, like top and bottom? I may just have to buy it anyway.

Wayne

My friend that gave me the K1000 bought it new in the 90s, after getting interested in photography from hanging out with me. It's shockingly "plastic-ed." I'd like to handle one of the early ones. My first "real" camera was a Richo Singlex TLS, about the size and weight of a brick. I suspect Spotmatics, early K1000s etc. are built more like that, though my old TLS was probably larger and thus heavier than any of those.

Checking my MX now - as far as I can tell the only plastic bits are what you'd expect - the skirt around the rewind knob, the tip on the wind lever, bevel around the viewfinder eyepiece, things like that. Everything important feels like metal.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ok, my K1000 is nice, but I am having a hard time focusing it with my bad eyes. So, I did the research and bought a MX (black) that had recently been gone through (new seals, lube, adjusted, etc) plus a 90 day warranty. Probably paid more than it is worth, but it has split image and looks like new. Once it gets here I will compare it to my K1000 and see which one I really like. I have the feeling the K1000 will go back into the closet and the MX will sit next to my M6.

Thanks Roger for prodding me along with how nice your MX is.

Wayne

Ooo..hope you're happy with it. I'd feel badly if you aren't! The viewfinder is one of the better ones and better than my K1000, but my K1000 is a late one and when all is said and done the MX is still a 70s design manual focus SLR. I know I've said it before but to repeat, the K1000 IS a good camera. I just consider the MX a better one (not much to debate there - compare the prices when both were available new) and a lot better buy at typical prices.

Right on Roger! A guy had 3 cameras for sale on Craigslist. The Pentax K1000 with 50mm f/2 lens, The MX with 50mm f/1.4 M lens and the KX with 50mm f/1.4 each for $100. A guy bought the K1000 and offered $50 for each of the 2 f/1.4 lenses and had no interest in the other 2 bodies. The seller would not take $50 for the lens because he figured what he was going to do with the bodies. So I got both bodies and lenses for $120.

Wow, you got by far the better deal, but of course you knew that.

No doubt the Pentax LX is a Hall of Famer as it's metering system is unequaled by any camera past or present. But a black KX & MX are nice too. . .

A black one WOULD be nice and would go with my LX too, but not for the price difference, at least at KEH. They currently list a BGN chrome one for $69 (a steal if this BGN is in as good shape as my BGN one) and a black BGN for $179. Even accounting for possible variations within "BGN" those prices make the chrome the obvious choice unless one just has money to burn. And besides, the chrome is the more durable finish.

 

[Les Sarile]

Of course a nice body should get a nice lens . . .

. . . or some nice accessories . . .

 

[Too old to care]

Checking my MX now - as far as I can tell the only plastic bits are what you'd expect - the skirt around the rewind knob, the tip on the wind lever, bevel around the viewfinder eyepiece, things like that. Everything important feels like metal.

Sounds like your MX is well made. I just checked my K1000 to see that it has a metal tip on the rewind know, and metal around the eyepiece. I can tell because the tip of the rewind know is chrome and around the eye piece a chunk of paint is missing exposing the metal. There is a plastic skirt under the rewind knob. All else on the camera, except the take-up spoon and sprocket, is metal as far as I can see. I assume my K1000 was made in Hong Kong due to the date I bought it, but it still seems well made. However, there is no marking anywhere on the camera showing where it was assembled.

I also removed the lens and compared the body weight to my M6 body and found the K1000 considerable heavier than the Leica. I know that this is not a measure of real quality, but it still shows that some quality must be there to be so heavy. However, the M6 is so quiet when fired, the K1000 sounds like a small lawn mower on its last leg.

I know I will like the MX, thanks.

Wayne

 

[Too old to care]

Of course a nice body should get a nice lens . . .

I don't have a 1.2, but I do have two 1.4 lenses and the same bellows. I use it to copy slides and negatives. Works great on my K5. For slide copying I use a 50mm, f2.8 macro lens that is a flat focus. It can be reversed on the bellows, however I do not find a need to. Sure do like Pentax stuff.

 

[Roger Cole]

I could be wrong about the eyepiece skirt - it's black and I sort of assumed plastic because I think that's actually better for that part as it's less likely to scratch glasses. I can't check the inside right now because it has film in it. There are plastic "flaps" on the takeup spool of the MX, LX and many other later Pentaxes - hard to describe, you'll just have to see when you get it, or look in the manual. Loading it is easier than the K1000 but not as easy as my XR-7 - Ricoh seems to have stolen the idea and improved upon it. Be sure when loading film in the MX to stick the leader firmly down as far as possible between two of those plastic slats, else it's very possible to think you've loaded and, if you miss the fact the rewind knob is not turning, waste a lot of shots. Don't ask me how I know. (Had my LX for nearly a year before it happened, but happened on some important shots at a family event of my wife's family. Now I know more about loading it and it seems less difficult than when I was doing it wrong, based on what I had always done with the XR-7.)

I'll check for more plastic later.

 

[Les Sarile]

I just used my bellows to verify detail comparable to 18,000dpi scan. Amazing what can be resolved by Kodak Techpan shot at ISO25 and processed in Technidol as well Fuji RVP (ISO50).

 

[Roger Cole]

Ever try using the dupe setup to shoot internegatives of slides? Been thinking of getting a slide dupe setup to try that - would seem much easier than trying to do it in the darkroom with the enlarger.

 

[Too old to care]

I bought my bellows in the 90's to transfer slides to prints. I used standard color film and was not happy with the results. The prints lost that snap the slides had, so I put the bellows away until I got the K5. I also have a Plustek 7600i to digitize negatives, but find the K5 does just as good of a job much faster.

With proper film I am sure the bellows would do a good job. With B&W film I know the setup would because you can control so much more in processing.

What I would love to have is a 6mm carrier that would attach to the Pentax setup. I saw one for a Canon or Nikon once that looked well made. The carrier was a modified Hasselblad carrier.

Wayne

 

[Too old to care]

K1000 vs MX

Update on an MX to replace my K1000. There is nothing wrong with the K1000, but I cannot focus it well anymore due to my eyes. So, when a MX was listed with split image viewfinder and a 90 day warranty I jumped on it. It arrived yesterday and looked better than expected. However, it had a problem so it is on the way back for repair, I hope.

First impressions, it is like Porsche compared to a Mustang when feeling it, looking through the viewfinder, turning the dials, etc. It feels and sounds like quality when operated, the K1000, well it doesn't, it just feels heavy. Of course it will take no better photos because you are using the same lens. That said, if it were me and I wanted a K1000, I would look seriously at the MX first.

Wayne

 

[spacer]

My first "real" SLR was a K1000, bought shortly before I got my entry-level EOS Rebel X. I've gotten some pretty nice pics out of both of 'em, but the Pentax took more care and thought, and I ended up getting some of my more memorable shots from it.
That camera was stolen out of my van a few years later, and about a year ago I picked up a replacement. IIRC, I paid about $17 for it... and the only problem was a dying battery (replaced) and some poorly re-applied leather on the right front of the body. I fixed that too, and it's just as nice now as the one I lost.

...come to think of it... there's one more thing I need... the wind lever cover.

 

[Roger Cole]

Update on an MX to replace my K1000. There is nothing wrong with the K1000, but I cannot focus it well anymore due to my eyes. So, when a MX was listed with split image viewfinder and a 90 day warranty I jumped on it. It arrived yesterday and looked better than expected. However, it had a problem so it is on the way back for repair, I hope.

First impressions, it is like Porsche compared to a Mustang when feeling it, looking through the viewfinder, turning the dials, etc. It feels and sounds like quality when operated, the K1000, well it doesn't, it just feels heavy. Of course it will take no better photos because you are using the same lens. That said, if it were me and I wanted a K1000, I would look seriously at the MX first.

Wayne

Sorry it had a problem and hope you get it fixed, but it seems you saw very quickly what I and some other MX fans have been saying. It's a really, really nice camera. (When not needing repair of course, which would be true of any camera.)

 

[lxdude]

The only thing I'd change about the MX would be to make the film speed go to 3200 or, better yet, 6400 as I do shoot TMZ at those speeds. It only tops out at 1600. But it's easy to meter at 1600 then just close down one or two stops, quicker to do than mention. This is much less of a problem on a manual camera than an automatic one. Most often you want to do this with the shutter speed since the aperture is usually wide open at those light levels anyway, and it's not that easy to change the shutter speed from eye level on the MX, another (very) minor quibble.

I've never been able to figure out why they made the shutter dial detents so gol-derned stiff. I have gotten used to it well enough to single-fingertip it and have the callus to prove it. The ISO range, yeah, that's another thing that would have been nice to have been greater- though as you say, easy to get around. Not having mirror lockup would be a problem were it not for the finger flick MLU (pre-release, actually) working so well on my MX's. I prefer the MX over even the LX for mirror-up operation because the cloth shutter has very little vibration on opening-- definitely less than the LX's metal shutter.