What is it exactly about the Pentax K1000?

Both cameras empty or both with film?

 

Both without film or lens and without body cap also. The K1000 doesn't have the battery in it and the FM does.

Both without film or lens and without body cap also. The K1000 doesn't have the battery in it and the FM does.

Ah! Well, you know, those two "D" cells in the FM do make a difference. ;)

Some people have bees in their bonnets for no good reason. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, no? I'm all for fanaticism when it comes to good things (like quality control) but this high school teacher really ought to be embarrassed.

 

I know someone whose lecturer demanded that all assignments be printed in Arial, for goodness sakes. Helvetica I can understand, but Arial? Some people have poor taste and stubbornness to go with it.

There's a sound reason for preferring Arial. Several articles on the subject, try this one: The Best Fonts to Use in Print, Online, and Email

Here's a quote from the article:

"A 2002 study by the Software Usability and Research Laboratory concluded that:

1. The most legible fonts were Arial, Courier, and Verdana.
   
2. At 10-point size, participants preferred Verdana. Times New Roman was the least preferred.
   
3. At 12-point size, Arial was preferred and Times New Roman was the least preferred.
   
4. The preferred font overall was Verdana, and Times New Roman was the least preferred."
   

I can easily understand a teacher not wanting to deal with a bunch of different typefaces every time he or she needs to grade a 100 papers.

I get it - but not completely. It's a charming yet capable artifact from the 1970s that is simple, rugged, fully manual and useful for beginners and professionals alike. But I don't see how it can sell for three times what it's actually worth! Have a look at this example:

 

Vintage Pentax K1000 35mm Film Camera with 50mm Lens | eBay

 

Pentax makes better cameras that sell for less, and yet... the K1000 is, oddly, a premium camera among low budget models. This is not to dismiss the K1000. Oh, no no no. It is a legend, moreso than many cameras aimed at professionals.

 

I've seen Contax and Nikon cameras sell for less. I dare say that nobody has made a camera like it. Nikon? No - they tried with the FM10 but that's a rebadged Cosina with an F mount. Blah. Canon? Nope. Olympus? Nah. Minolta? I don't think so.

 

It's an enigma that does not seem like an enigma. I guess that's why I don't fully appreciate it. When you're used to the rich mystique of a Leica M, what is a Pentax K1000 in comparison? I guess some things are best left as mysteries and just enjoyed as they are.

 

Not sure how this is an "enigma" ie., a person or thing that is mysterious, puzzling, or difficult to understand. The camera you quoted is less than a 100USD dollars for the camera and lens that are still very useful equipment, especially for beginning photography courses assuming good working condition. What other photographic gear would you prefer for that price?

There's a sound reason for preferring Arial. Several articles on the subject, try this one: The Best Fonts to Use in Print, Online, and Email

Here's a quote from the article:

"A 2002 study by the Software Usability and Research Laboratory concluded that:

1. The most legible fonts were Arial, Courier, and Verdana.
   
2. At 10-point size, participants preferred Verdana. Times New Roman was the least preferred.
   
3. At 12-point size, Arial was preferred and Times New Roman was the least preferred.
   
4. The preferred font overall was Verdana, and Times New Roman was the least preferred."
   

I can easily understand a teacher not wanting to deal with a bunch of different typefaces every time he or she needs to grade a 100 papers.

All good points, but I don't quite understand the researchers comparing readability of Arial to Times New Roman, the former being a sans serif and the latter a serif font, which is sort of comparing apples to oranges. A comparison of Arial to Helvetica makes more sense and I'd choose Arial as it is has softer, fuller, and more open curves, which make it more pleasant to my eye and more readable. Perhaps, most importantly, Arial's edges on letters like r, t, e, have a much more natural cut-off, the cut aligning with the natural angle its on instead of always being on the horizontal, as Helvetica is. The horizontal cuts on edges give Helvetica a more labored feel. Times New Roman, a serif font, is going to look more traditional and serif fonts were generally considered more readable for text. Obviously more recent studies are now showing that's up for debate.

 

I think both serif and sans serif fonts can be made to be pretty readable if the size and spacing is done well within the context of the text. Having been a typographer/typesetter by trade for about 40 years, I generally choose my typefaces based not just on readability but also overall feel and mood, knowing that I can usually make a decent, not too extravagant or fancy, typeface pretty readable. Serif fonts like New Times Roman will often give off a more formal, sometimes more academic feel. Sans serifs tend to be more casual and have a softer feel.

All good points, but I don't quite understand the researchers comparing readability of Arial to Times New Roman, the former being a sans serif and the latter a serif font, which is sort of comparing apples to oranges. A comparison of Arial to Helvetica makes more sense and I'd choose Arial as it is has softer, fuller, and more open curves, which make it more pleasant to my eye and more readable. Perhaps, most importantly, Arial's edges on letters like r, t, e, have a much more natural cut-off, the cut aligning with the natural angle its on instead of always being on the horizontal, as Helvetica is. The horizontal cuts on edges give Helvetica a more labored feel. Times New Roman, a serif font, is going to look more traditional and serif fonts were generally considered more readable for text. Obviously more recent studies are now showing that's up for debate.

 

I think both serif and sans serif fonts can be made to be pretty readable if the size and spacing is done well within the context of the text. Having been a typographer/typesetter by trade for about 40 years, I generally choose my typefaces based not just on readability but also overall feel and mood, knowing that I can usually make a decent, not too extravagant or fancy, typeface pretty readable. Serif fonts like New Times Roman will often give off a more formal, sometimes more academic feel. Sans serifs tend to be more casual and have a softer feel.

 

I think the GENERAL consensus(although I've not read a study where this was examined) is that sans-serif fonts are better for on-screen reading. With that said, serif fonts like Georgia and the more recent Cambria(default font in newer versions of MS office) are designed for on-screen legibility. I use Georgia as my default email font for a couple of reasons, but it's a legible and tolerable serif font that's also cross platform. I got tired of Helvetica showing up as Courier on Windows computers. I also like having a professional but still distinctive font when in an email exchange with several people(most of whom are using Arial or Cambria) since it's easy to pick out my emails.

 

With Aria vs. Helvietica, I'm partial to the overall sharper and "cleaner" look of Helvetica, but this I realize is a matter of preference.

Fred, I think he was discussing some of the commonly used fonts. He does state that generally serif fonts are more readable than sans serif, but I think the comparison was on 3 commonly used fonts. As an aside, for a long time, federal district courts in Southern Cal required Courier 13pt type. (they may still) Our firm for many years specified (except for federal court) everyone use Arial. This was based on outside research and a firm wide survey on what font was the most legible. Great majority found Arial the most legible to read at 12 pt. Now the firm specifies Times New Roman 13 pt. (for state court matters, email and all correspondence). This was a stylistic decision not based purely on legibility. There are all kind of reasons as to font sizes as well. Both state courts and federal courts require page limitations on briefs. Federal court wants one font for all so everyone is on an equal playing field in terms of how much can be put into a legal brief. Similar reason as beginning film photography teachers requiring a camera that can work all manually and have a 50mm lens. The 50mm cause they are generally the least expensive lens, its considered basically to present a "normal" view and the teacher can focus on certain areas they are trying to teach without having to take into account varying types of lenses. The teachers in my program enjoyed student creativity and fostered it, but in beginning classes they were really focussed on technical skills hence the uniformity was desirable at critique time. All manual cameras because the first shooting exercises had to do with using the sunny 16 rule so the meter wasn't used. this is all probably TMI. But I imagine the teacher referred to didn't insist on Arial because of its esthetics.

As an aside, for a long time, federal district courts in Southern Cal required Courier 13pt type

I actually once got hired as a consultant by a law firm to typographically dissect some fine print on corporate/consumer contracts. A litigant was claiming the typography didn't meet readability standards and I had to identify all typefaces, type sizes, leading, even problems with hyphenation and justification of text. I might have served as an expert witness but the case got settled out of court. It was kind of a fun respite from my usual work in the industry. I was actually kind of hoping for my day in court, but had to be satisfied with my next bout of jury duty.

The teachers in my program enjoyed student creativity and fostered it, but in beginning classes they were really focussed on technical skills hence the uniformity was desirable at critique time.

That's great. Fostering student creativity should never conflict with teaching technical skills and the basics. If they go hand in hand, and technique goes hand in hand with expression and aesthetics, both technique and expression/aesthetics benefit greatly. When I learned Greek, we started by reading the Iliad in the original Greek. We learned vocabulary and grammar as we progressed (SLOWLY) through the text. I found it much more rewarding to learn foreign words and grammar as a way to get the fullness of the language used in a Homeric poem as opposed to simply learning vocabulary and grammar in isolation. It gave me a good feel for the usage of the language and made an otherwise daunting learning curve a little more fun and appealing.

I would never allow sans serif fonts in legal applications. Serifs are very important in terms of legibility. Capital 'i' and lower case 'L' are too similar. Some people have deceptive Twitter accounts which exploit the similarity between those two letters. San serif made sense with low resolution screens. But now that we have Retina displays, it's time to go back to serif fonts. Watch - it will happen.

 

Typography is very important! Ever notice how in school we learned about art... but never about design? That has to be fixed. I would have gotten maybe better grades, as I'm better at design than I am at art.

I would never allow sans serif fonts in legal applications. Serifs are very important in terms of legibility. Capital 'i' and lower case 'L' are too similar. Some people have deceptive Twitter accounts which exploit the similarity between those two letters. San serif made sense with low resolution screens. But now that we have Retina displays, it's time to go back to serif fonts. Watch - it will happen.

 

Typography is very important! Ever notice how in school we learned about art... but never about design? That has to be fixed. I would have gotten maybe better grades, as I'm better at design than I am at art.

Well I guess you weren't on the executive committee of our mid-sized law firm. Again, for legibility, Arial is considered one of the most legible, whether serif or sans.

Fred do you still work in that industry?

Late to this thread, I had a nice minty K-1 that I got at the tag end of a tag sale for something like 5 bucks, and ran some film through. It was a good camera, its meter was accurate, and its lens was OK, but I also wondered why it was so highly regarded, considering that it lacked some pretty basic amenities, including an on off switch, a self timer, and a preview button. It made good pictures, but so did many other low-end SLR's. I always wondered why the K1000 was so highly regarded, though I guess t was pretty well made. During a massive thinning out of my collection a couple of years ago, I decided to limit my stuff to Nikon and Minolta,and gave away the K1000, along with others, which I hope students find useful. I have other base level cameras that make equally good pictures.

Fred do you still work in that industry?

Retired.

all this talk of typefaces is gonna give me a fontal lobotomy :-)

Late to this thread, I had a nice minty K-1 that I got at the tag end of a tag sale for something like 5 bucks, and ran some film through.

I’ll bet THAT was tricky!

all this talk of typefaces is gonna give me a fontal lobotomy :)

+1 for intentional typo pun.