Pentax k1000?

[Steve Roberts]

I think it's mostly the lack of DOF preview on the K1000 that bothers me, something I'd always miss and do when I shoot with mine.

Actually, the K1000 does have an unofficial DOF preview that you wouldn't want to use for every shot but can be pressed into service on the odd occasion.

Simply press the lens release lock and rotate the lens a few degrees and long before it falls out of the bayonet mount the spring loaded aperture assembly will close the diaphragm to the selected aperture. Perhaps not something to try for the first time when leaning over the Grand Canyon, but get a feel for it over your sofa!

Steve

 

[NormanV]

It's a great camera, I had one for twenty years (it was my only camera for most of that time). In my opinion depth of field preview is a waste of time, the image is too dark to make a useful judgement. The only drawback I can see is the film loading, I always found it fiddly and never got used to it. A Nikkormat is a better camera.

 

[Too old to care]

I bought a Spotmatic new in 1968 while I was in the military. After 20 years of faithful service and a couple minor repairs, my camera repair man told me that it was worn out. He suggested a K1000 because the insides are very much the same as the Spotmatic. True, it does not have self-timer or DOF preview, however it has had lenses manufactured by various companies for decades. I also once owned a ME Super, but gave it to my niece because I like using a camera that does not require a battery to operate (other than the light meter). I put it away when I got my Leica M6 in 1998, but recently got it out to shoot some B&W of trees blooming because I could use a macro lens on it. I was amazed at how good the photos looked. A few of them are posed on this site.

A student camera, yes, but a good one.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's a great camera, I had one for twenty years (it was my only camera for most of that time). In my opinion depth of field preview is a waste of time, the image is too dark to make a useful judgement. The only drawback I can see is the film loading, I always found it fiddly and never got used to it. A Nikkormat is a better camera.

If you can't see the image well enough when stopped down to judge depth of field you need your eyes examined - or more practice. Far from a waste of time I consider it pretty much a requirement in any camera I buy. I only own a K1000 because it was given to me.

For a beginner that lack may not be noticed. I would say that I guarantee you will miss it as time goes on, but apparently at least one person doesn't. I would, badly, and do when I shoot with that one.

I don't like the film loading either. My LX and MX are better but neither is as good as my Ricoh XR-7. That similar but refined system should have been stolen by every camera maker until they finally developed the auto load on the models with built in winders.

 

[pstake]

It's a great camera, I had one for twenty years (it was my only camera for most of that time). In my opinion depth of field preview is a waste of time, the image is too dark to make a useful judgement. The only drawback I can see is the film loading, I always found it fiddly and never got used to it. A Nikkormat is a better camera.

I also rarely (if ever) use depth of field preview. After while, you get to where you can visualize the depth of field based on the aperture you're using. Most of my cameras have a preview function, so apparently it's a sought after feature by a good chunk of the camera-buying population, but there are at least two of us for whom it's negligible. And I would say it need not be viewed as a must-have feature.

As always, YMMV.

 

[Roger Cole]

If you can't see the image well enough when stopped down to judge depth of field you need your eyes examined - or more practice. Far from a waste of time I consider it pretty much a requirement in any camera I buy. I only own a K1000 because it was given to me.

For a beginner that lack may not be noticed. I would say that I guarantee you will miss it as time goes on, but apparently at least one person doesn't. I would, badly, and do when I shoot with that one.

I don't like the film loading either. My LX and MX are better but neither is as good as my Ricoh XR-7. That similar but refined system should have been stolen by every camera maker until they finally developed the auto load on the models with built in winders.

Too late to edit this but I was very tired after working all night when I posted it this morning. I apologize for my tone and comment about having your eyes examined. I SHOULD have said "I personally find it very valuable and know others who do as well."

I also shoot 4x5 and you get used to evaluating a pretty dark image. Of course the dark cloth and loupe help with LF.

And I do love my Yashicamat which of course doesn't have DOF preview - but I do miss it. I get good results, but often enough wish for it. I've often wondered why they couldn't put a diaphragm on the viewing lens for just that purpose.

 

[Chan Tran]

I agree with Roger that the K1000 is a ok camera if it's cheap. The K1000 was introduced as the least expensive SLR that is usable. So today if one can buy it for less money than others than it's fine otherwise it's overpriced. In the early 80's you could buy a brand new K1000 with its 50mm f/2 lens for $129.00.

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree with Roger that the K1000 is a ok camera if it's cheap. The K1000 was introduced as the least expensive SLR that is usable. So today if one can buy it for less money than others than it's fine otherwise it's overpriced. In the early 80's you could buy a brand new K1000 with its 50mm f/2 lens for $129.00.

Exactly. Here are my three Pentax bodies for comparison. Left to right the K1000, the LX and the MX. Excuse the flash glare on the LX - quickly grabbed shot with the digisnapper.

I've already made the point that I consider an MX a better camera available for less money if one buys from a used equipment dealer. This gives some idea of the size differences.

 

[Les Sarile]

I've already made the point that I consider an MX a better camera available for less money if one buys from a used equipment dealer.

I'd like to buy an MX from a new equipment dealer . . .

 

[Roger Cole]

I'd like to buy an MX from a new equipment dealer . . .

Well duh - I mean, of course, as opposed to finding one from a local person, friend etc. and what they might charge. And it was more about the cost of K1000s. Looking at K1000s versus the alternatives at KEH for example makes me think that K1000 buyers have taken leave of their senses. Nothing really wrong with it but it is simply not worth those prices in today's market, not to me and not to, in my opinion, anyone who knows a bit about it and the available alternatives. I'd never buy one at those prices. Note that I have one - someone gave it to me. If I could have bought it for $20 (not that unusual, watch Craig's list etc.) same thing applies, I would have. I paid $79 for the MX from KEH.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Well duh - I mean, of course, as opposed to finding one from a local person, friend etc. and what they might charge. And it was more about the cost of K1000s. Looking at K1000s versus the alternatives at KEH for example makes me think that K1000 buyers have taken leave of their senses. Nothing really wrong with it but it is simply not worth those prices in today's market, not to me and not to, in my opinion, anyone who knows a bit about it and the available alternatives. I'd never buy one at those prices. Note that I have one - someone gave it to me. If I could have bought it for $20 (not that unusual, watch Craig's list etc.) same thing applies, I would have. I paid $79 for the MX from KEH.

Agree 100%!

The K1000 is a great illustration of how myths and legends are created and passed on, independently of reality.

Also, IIRC, while the earlier K1000s were made by Pentax in Japan to more or less Spotmatic standards, later ones were built elsewhere (not a good thing at the time), using plastic and shoddier standards.
In the worst cases, simply a cheap camera...

Finally, while I can live without a DOF preview in ranferfinders and TLRs (a different style of seeing and shooting anyway), it's lack in an SLR makes no sense.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have a late K1000. It just FEELS cheap, much more so actually than my plastic but nice feeling Ricoh XR-7. I'm pretty sure it's a Chinese one. The MX and LX feel like precision machines.

 

[freecom2]

Very much agreed with Roger on this - the K1000 isn't bad per se, and it deserves the reputation it has, but that very reputation means it overshadows some excellent cameras - i.e. the superb MX. What a great handling little SLR, big viewfinder, full aperture/shutter speed detail in the viewfinder and bright LED metering for lower light situations. Durability and build are to a high standard as well.

 

[Roger Cole]

Very much agreed with Roger on this - the K1000 isn't bad per se, and it deserves the reputation it has, but that very reputation means it overshadows some excellent cameras - i.e. the superb MX. What a great handling little SLR, big viewfinder, full aperture/shutter speed detail in the viewfinder and bright LED metering for lower light situations. Durability and build are to a high standard as well.

Shhh! Between the two of us the secret will get out how nice the MX is and we won't be able to get nice ones for $79 from KEH anymore!

 

[Too old to care]

Shhh! Between the two of us the secret will get out how nice the MX is and we won't be able to get nice ones for $79 from KEH anymore!

Too late, now I want one too. Trade an early K1000 for one? No, I didn't think so.

 

[Roger Cole]

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. But the prominent full information in the viewfinder does help with that.

 

[freecom2]

Shhh! Between the two of us the secret will get out how nice the MX is and we won't be able to get nice ones for $79 from KEH anymore!

Sadly I'm based in the UK so that was not really a viable option anyway - so I have no issue with letting the secret out

Just as a point, the OP mentioned they were looking for an FE2. I very recently acquired an FE2, and it's just on a different level to the K1000 - it's a serious bit of kit, gosh.

 

[Les Sarile]

Question is, black or chrome . . .

 

[Terry Christian]

Les: Basic black is always in style.

I agree. The K-1000 may lack the features of its big brothers, but if you can get it without an inflated price, it's great. Extremely popular K-mount, fully manual, battery-operated meter, and durable, without any frills.

 

[pstake]

Does anybody know where the K-1000s were made?

I seem to remember reading something to the effect that the earlier (first two or three years) ones were made in Japan but it was later sourced to China. This has always marred the reputation of the K-1000, in my mind. Which is not to say that I would not recommend a K-1000 to a person looking to get started / back into analog / manual photography without breaking the bank.

But Chinese manufacturing has historically been a cost-saving, quality and reliability-reducing measure taken by companies who prefer to put money into marketing rather than manufacturing. Hope I'm not stepping on any toes with this. Just curious if the K-1000 was China made and if that affected the quality.

I'm a big fan of Pentax cameras and lenses. I had a Spotmatic II with a couple of great lenses (the famous SMC 55 1.8 and a lesser-known but equally capable Fujinon 35 1.9), and it was just a tank that worked very well. My only complaint about it was the dim viewfinder. Eventually I sold it to a friend who wanted to get back into analog and use something reliable that could produce high-quality results but not cost a fortune. And I was always using my Yashicas / Contax, so the Spotmatic was not being used.

 

[Roger Cole]

Question is, black or chrome . . .

Mine is chrome because it was something like half the price or less of the black. Plus chrome is more durable. I have a black LX and Ricoh, chrome K1000 and MX. Both are fine. I suggest whichever is less expensive for the same condition (which will almost always be chrome.)

But a black MX would be nice...

 

[Too old to care]

Does anybody know where the K-1000s were made?

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

 

[Chan Tran]

Shhh! Between the two of us the secret will get out how nice the MX is and we won't be able to get nice ones for $79 from KEH anymore!

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.

 

[Les Sarile]

I have a black LX and Ricoh, chrome K1000 and MX. But a black MX would be nice...
But a black MX would be nice...

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. . .

 

[Too old to care]

Mine is chrome because it was something like half the price or less of the black. Plus chrome is more durable. I have a black LX and Ricoh, chrome K1000 and MX. Both are fine. I suggest whichever is less expensive for the same condition (which will almost always be chrome.)

But a black MX would be nice...

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