What is it exactly about the Pentax K1000?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Karim Ghantous, Jun 4, 2018.

  1. Wow.
    That K1000 got complicated.
    This thread perfectly illustrates the reason for its appeal.


    Funny how well the words to the song apply.....
    Jochen likes this.
  2. I don't know but personally I can't recommend the K1000 to anyone in these days and age. I have never wasted any frame on 35mm SLR which I do have quite a few. I do agree with you that the Canon AE-1 and A-1 are bad because they don't have metered manual mode which I think is best mode for beginner.
  3. How or who do you mean? - Even heirs posting: "I'm blonde & clueless, got one brick of film and 2 dozen SLRs -Which should I load?" Or just buyers spending $$s wisely on today's market?
    Fortunate you! The Pentax LX was quite nasty; A mounted MD or winder reduced the distance between half and full pressing drastically; I usually used the other button activating the meter to be better safe than sorry. The rear buttons on the winder & MD were also prone to actuate the camera by accident.

    I also have a long list of missed shots due to too infinite shutter button way. - OK, not on SLRs, more on folders and TLRs.
    I'd keep an unfamiliar camera off to get an idea of an electronic shutter release button or fire anything dry and unloaded so I totally agree upon that K1000 feature not being really important for photographers owning their gear, but I'd still call it superior beginner friendly ergonomics. - I also have the conventionally wired Maginon K1000 with trigger activated traffic light meter display and consider it less convenient to shoot, so I'd pick the Pentax for regular use if my lens permits using a cap. - TBH: I don't even care about mechanical SLR batteries anymore these days. - I don't shoot mine frequently enough to justify the investment and my favorite cameras demand handheld meters anyhow.
  4. I just did a quick check on Ebay and found that the K1000's are selling for more money than the KX or the Nikon FM which are the 2 that I consider of the same period, all manual and superior to the K1000. I can't see paying more for the K1000. Back in the days both of the cameras I mention were selling for about twice the price of the K1000 and it was fine to buy the K1000 if money is tight.
    Fortunately or unfortunately I don't own the Pentax LX which I consider a very fine camera. Back in the days I chose the Nikon F3HP instead.
  5. Haven’t studied closely but how do lens prices compare, late 70’s to early 80’s between Nikon and Pentax? I bought a few like new AIS Nikons recently, that if memory serves, cost considerably more than what I paid for Pentax glass, but I bought most of those a decade or so ago.
  6. I'm too young to comment about the 70s. - During the pre-EOS 80s MD glass seemed the very cheapest on the used market, followed by k-mount and f-mount fetched more. - Even if we are talking about the same Sigma or Tokina. Pentax must have started losing previous market share those days. A bunch of my influencers i.e. friends of parents or (non photo) teachers at high school used to own ME (Super)s.
  7. You can get a K1000 at KEH for less than $200, which once you consider inflation, comes out to less than what it cost brand new. Three million of those cameras were sold and millions of us cut our photographic teeth on a K1000. Add in insanely sturdy construction and great glass and you have one fine 35mm camera. Mine, which my dad bought second hand in the 1980s, just gave up the ghost a few months ago. Years ago when I moved up to a Nikon FM, the only difference I noticed was that the Nikon had a more sensitive meter for taking pictures in somewhat lower light. Now .... if people want to fetishize machines, that's up to them. To me, their tools and the K1000 was a particularly good one.
    Uhooru likes this.
  8. One of the things that sticks out to me about the FM/FE series cameras is that they are relatively light next to the all-metal chunks like the K1000, Canon FTb, and the Nikkormats. The FM/FE feel more solid than Canon A-series cameras, and they're not exactly lightweight, but they lack the "solid block of metal" feel of the more basic cameras.

    BTW, even though I have an FM I prefer the FM2 for its even more sensitive meter vs. the FM. Both the FM2 and EL2 have silicon cells.
  9. I put an FM and a K1000 on the scale. The FM is 577g and the K1000 is 607g about 5% difference.
    chulster likes this.
  10. Both cameras empty or both with film?
  11. Both without film or lens and without body cap also. The K1000 doesn't have the battery in it and the FM does.
  12. Ah! Well, you know, those two "D" cells in the FM do make a difference. ;)
    Moving On likes this.
  13. 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.
    Norma Desmond likes this.
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
    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.
    Uhooru likes this.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.

Share This Page