what happens with Pentax K1000?

panocho · Jun 12, 2007

I'm not sure this is the right place to post this -and please note this is not any kind of complain! it's perfectly allright with me!

The question is, what does the Pentax K1000 have that it constantly appears mentioned as the first SLR to start learning, the best manual SLR, etc? Sure it's a great camera, won't put it into question (although personally I never tried one), but why it's so insistently claimed as the one to go? why it seems to be TPF's favorite?

It's just a mistery to me. In my view, many other cameras (same kind of cameras but from different brands) should be expected to be suggested when new users ask for suggestions, but the K1000 beats them all! constantly! Why not a Nikon FM, a Minolta X-series... why always the same Pentax K1000???

Jeff Canes · Jun 12, 2007

It has nothing. Its fully manual so it requires the use to think about everything. And people have been recommending it for years.

dinodan · Jun 12, 2007

panocho said:
I'm not sure this is the right place to post this -and please note this is not any kind of complain! it's perfectly allright with me!

The question is, what does the Pentax K1000 have that it constantly appears mentioned as the first SLR to start learning, the best manual SLR, etc? Sure it's a great camera, won't put it into question (although personally I never tried one), but why it's so insistently claimed as the one to go? why it seems to be TPF's favorite?

It's just a mistery to me. In my view, many other cameras (same kind of cameras but from different brands) should be expected to be suggested when new users ask for suggestions, but the K1000 beats them all! constantly! Why not a Nikon FM, a Minolta X-series... why always the same Pentax K1000???

Good question. It seems to me that back in the day (1980s), it was less expensive than the other cameras you mention, and so was a favorite of beginners, students, etc. Of course, today they're all only available used, so the price difference is practically non-existant. It seems that the "cachet" has stayed with the camera, however.

Even as a Nikon guy, I can even remember recommending the K1000 to people who asked me about a good "starter" SLR back in those long-ago days. Nikon had the FG, which must have been price competitive, but the purists decried the fact that it had LEDs (and a Program mode) rather than simple match needles.

Sw1tchFX · Jun 12, 2007

I started out on a Nikon FE if that makes you feel better?

:hug::

panocho · Jun 12, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
I started out on a Nikon FE if that makes you feel better?

:hug::

Well, I don't feel bad at all!

By the way, even though with Nikon for years, I started with a Minolta X-300, and was very happy with it.

dinodan, your reply makes sense, but still I keep wondering...

Big Mike · Jun 12, 2007

Another good one is a Canon AE-1. It uses Canon FD lenses, which are dirt cheap because they are not compatible with Canon auto focus cameras.

Personally, I started on an EOS 650, the first Canon AF SLR.

blackdoglab · Jun 12, 2007

mine was an olympus om-10, but now i've got my Zenit. I think part of the k1000's status had to do with the fact that Pentax put the kmount in the public domain early on and teachers saw that students had an opportunity to try a variety of focal lengths that were cheaper than Pentax's.

usayit · Jun 12, 2007

Inexpensive, reliable, simple, needle TTL meter, sturdy, a very long production history. It is one of the few cameras in which its featureless design became a feature in of itself. I bet many colleges provided them to students.

So what was the "student" camera prior to the K1000... Spotmatic?

My first was a Minolta 7000 but I collect and shoot with old Pentax SLRs.

Mike_E · Jun 12, 2007

Minolta SRT 101 for me. (I just got it back after 25 years!) I think it's because so many started out on them and feel that 'if they were good enough for me they will be good enough for you'. Pentax had a rep back in the day- if they weren't Nikons they were close. I personally think a Nikon N8008s or a N90s (F100 if you can swing it) is the way to go because you can get manual with it and still learn everything else that you will need when you go digital and you can use the lenses on the D when you get it.

Try telling somebody that though

. Really, if you want to be a purist get a 4X5!! 8X10 would do nicely too!

mike

sabbath999 · Jun 12, 2007

The K1000 was darn near indestructible... and versatile... for example, if you were a carpenter, you could use it as both a hammer and a crow bar during the week, and take pictures with it on the weekend.

Mitica100 · Jun 12, 2007

sabbath999 said:
The K1000 was darn near indestructible... and versatile... for example, if you were a carpenter, you could use it as both a hammer and a crow bar during the week, and take pictures with it on the weekend.

Also doubles as a nut cracker, beer bottle opener, meat tenderizer. And still works well as a picture taker. They are indestructible!

Stretch Armstrong · Jun 13, 2007

dinodan said:
Good question. It seems to me that back in the day (1980s), it was less expensive than the other cameras you mention, and so was a favorite of beginners, students, etc. Of course, today they're all only available used, so the price difference is practically non-existant. It seems that the "cachet" has stayed with the camera, however.

Even as a Nikon guy, I can even remember recommending the K1000 to people who asked me about a good "starter" SLR back in those long-ago days. Nikon had the FG, which must have been price competitive, but the purists decried the fact that it had LEDs (and a Program mode) rather than simple match needles.

Man, you just took me down memory lane. My first camera was a K1000. Then I stepped up to the Nikon FG. I loved both.

The K1000, looking back, reminds me of the practicality of the VW bug which was also my first car. It was very basic with no distractions from the real job at hand.

I still have both the K1000 and the Nikon FG. Both still work great. I don't have my first VW although I wised I did.

:thumbup:

kaboom · Jun 13, 2007

I started out on the K1000, then i moved on to a Canon F-1 and just recently to a nikon F100.
The Pentax K had it ALL. it was an awesome camera. well built (supposing you got the japanese version, which i did. the later chinese-built ones weren't as sturdy) precise, stripped down. VERY easy to use which forced you to concentrate on composition. The ONLY thing, and i mean ONLY thing this camera had was ISO, shutter speed, aperture and shutter release. nothing else whatsoever. it didn't even have an on button. it was always ready, the batteries lasted forever, it had a slew of lenses at very competitive prices and you could adapt all of the older m42 mount lenses with an adapter that was dirt cheap too (you can translate this paragraph into present if you wish)
They go for very cheap today. i got mine for a 120 bucks in absolutely mint condition with the lovely stock 50 2.0, which i think is by far and large the best lens a beginner could get.
i could take pictures with this camera, and i could take them FAST. it was snappy, focused well, tack sharp... i think, as a camera, it had it ALL.
I don't think there's a single camera in the world that will take better pictures than this one. Sure, there are a tonne that make it EASIER to take pictures, but none that will actually take BETTER pictures.
simply put, it had everything you NEEDED, and nothing else.
Sure, i felt the F-1 in my hands and i couldn't let the chance pass. i found it for dirt cheap, too, with what still ranks as the best lens i've ever used, Canon's 50 1.4. but this one had more bells and whistles to distract you. its still match needle, and on this one you actually have viewfinder indications for aperture and shutter speed, and its a nicer camera... But its not quite as raw as the K1000 was.
Its kinda like racing cars. If you wanna be someone in the racing world, you start out racing Karts. and these have absolutely NOTHING that isn't needed. they don't even have a suspension, they rely on chassis compliance to adapt to the irregularities of the track which means u gotta learn how to drive it. Similarly, the K1000 only has center-weighted metering as opposed to the F100's super-duper 10 segement 3D matrix metering, which means with the K1000 you gotta learn how to metter and expose properly, cuz the camera ain't gonna do it for you. However, on twisty tracks, they can go as fast if not faster than their big brothers. All for a 10th of the cost.
there. i hope this brick contained a little bit of useful information. cheers!

dinodan · Jun 13, 2007

Stretch Armstrong said:
Man, you just took me down memory lane. My first camera was a K1000. Then I stepped up to the Nikon FG. I loved both.

The K1000, looking back, reminds me of the practicality of the VW bug which was also my first car. It was very basic with no distractions from the real job at hand.

I still have both the K1000 and the Nikon FG. Both still work great. I don't have my first VW although I wised I did.

:thumbup:

I still have the FG that I bought at Montgomery Ward (remember them?) ca. 1986. I already had the FE2 at the time, but I wanted a second body. Aside from replacement of the light seals about 10 years ago, it has not required any repairs at all.

I might scout out Ebay for a K1000 and 50mm lens (as if I didn't already have enough cameras)... Used camera buying can be a serious addiction!