What's the deal with the K1000?

[yockenwaithe]

<p>So I've some of my older photographer friends [and looking a fair bit on the internet] for camera suggestions, and have been getting the Pentax K1000 A LOT as a response. The real question is, what's so great about this camera? I've used this camera myself and personally feel it's a bit basic and kind of a pain [not to disrespect you all in the K1000 cult]. Is it because it was so popular before that it's now just ingrained in the photography society to just recommend this one camera, or maybe just a matter or preference?</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>It was a lot of camera for a little money. Simple, sturdy, and beautiful in a utilitarian sort of way.</p>

[rossb]

<p>For older photographers a camera with diopter adjustments is a good idea. I am not sure how the K1000 became the king of beginner camera's but it wears the crown. I would rather buy a FM2 myself.</p>

<p> </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Back in the early 80's the K1000 is a usable camera for $129 with the lens. It's hard to beat the bargain. For that kind of money back then you can only buy P&S so it's a good deal. Today sometimes it was sold for more than a Nikon FM which is a better camera and was selling for almost $300 with the Nikkor f/2.0 lens. It's no longer a good deal but so many people still recommended it. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I own one. Its my historically 4th k-mount body and I lost count of those by now.<br /> I guess you named the issues:</p>

<ul>

<li>older photography (makeshift) teachers.</li>

<li>basic(!) camera</li>

</ul>

<p>I suppose for a teacher type picking the still in production K1000 was a good decision. <br /> Teaching photography is about basic exposure stuff (shutter speed & aperture) a camera suggestion is better for the teaching workflow if it doesn't end demanding extra attention to handle camera specific quirks. "Let's set our shutters to 1/250. everybody turn the dial on top of your cameras when I say "go", Jim on your old Praktica you'll have to cock the shutter first before you set it, Jill on your K100D turn the left wheel on top of it 5 clicks clockwise on M and turn the tiny wheel at your right thumb's tip to set the shutter speed. - Go!! - Now let's meter for this scene here and adjust aperture everybody please turn your aperture rings till the needles are in the middle. Jill don't do that, press the tiny square button behind the shutter release and spin your right thumb tip wheel once again till you see "0.0" in your VF display, behind shutter speed and aperture oh and Jim feel free to come a little closer to use your handheld meter. - Would you be so kind to give us an incident reading?"...<br /> I guess my random & fictional example gives an idea how messy (and boring for the majority!) teaching a group with less homogeneous camera gear becomes in photographic boot camp class.<br /> My boss once asked me how to do studio shots I told him to set white balance fixed to "flash" as a first step. - He tried, I tried and after giving up I replied: "sorry sir, I'm slightly into photography, but I don't speak Nikon." (They are capable cameras, but I never got used to their menu structure, since I don't own one myself) - Downloading manuals of everybody's camera does of course help but they should be in the heads and not on PCs taking 3 minutes to boot.<br /> Back in its days the K1000 was pretty simple, not really expensive (new!) and quite reliable due to its simplicity. It further offered the convenience of really forcing its user to get familiar with the manual controls it offers. - I'm sure there were similar and better deals on the market, but still a long list requiring permanent updates and fixes. - Its of course OK to admit pupils with different gear <em>as long as they read their manuals,</em> but I am recalling a class where a lady felt unable to change film in her T70... <br /> Another unique advantage of the K1000: Its meter gets activated by uncapping the lens. - This means even the clumsiest pupil won't whine "boo, I wasted a frame!" when requested to<em> half</em> press the shutter to meter something. (Film wasn't THAT cheap, was it?) <br>

Today I might lend mine out for a boot camp class somewhere. But I'm no longer convinced of it as "the ultimate pupil camera" since prices for used ones skyrocketed due to the frequent old-school style recommendations. Also the K1000 is no longer a real entry into a world of serious photography. - It can't handle the latest k-mount AF lenses without an aperture ring and the DSLRs don't play too well with old plain k mount, stop down metering and manual focus. <br>

To praise it at least a bit: I noticed it is kind of hard to get meters activated by shutter half pressing in other cameras. - I also believe its easier to read a hand than to decipher displayed figures. <br />If hood caps for SLR lenses were more common the K1000 would indeed be quite nice to shoot.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>I get that, but there are pretty good cameras similar enough to the K1000 that could be standardized for photography purposes, such as the Argus/Cosina STL1000. Also indestructible, cheap good lenses, the meter turns on when uncapped, but it also has a self timer and a metal focal plane shutter [much better than the cheap rubberized K1000's shutter] and <strong>is</strong> <strong>cheaper</strong>. Only drawback is no hotshoe on the STL, but it still has PC syncs for flash just in case.</p>

<p>Mostly just wondering because my friend was going to school and they were recommending to get a K1000, but I think the STL is better but still similar enough to be good for a beginner</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>Personally I have one and my daughter (21) also has one. Film cameras in general are making a comeback in the 15-25 year old hipster folks. So much so.....<a href="http://www.samys.com/s/pentax%20k1000">Are you ready for this. Samys advertises them regularly on their site and flyers. </a></p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>I think the analogue film industry is catering a lot to the hipster market right now [*cough cough* Lomography]. I find it sort of silly that they have film that develops as red/blue/yellow for much more than normal color film when you could get similar results using color filters. Not that I don't like funky cameras/effects, but I find that ridiculous</p>

[steve_fay]

<p>You are asking "older photographers," according to your first post. It seems obvious that for many of them certain qualities are desired:<br>

<br /> - all of the basic manual controls<br /> - able to take pictures even if the batteries are dead<br /> - through-the-lens metering if the batteries are good<br /> - wide range of interchangeable lenses available<br /> - solid, some might say rugged construction<br>

<br /> People with this mindset might also like cameras with more automatic features, but might might prefer ones that still can work fully manually, when necessary or desired.<br>

<br /> There certainly are more basic cameras than the K1000, such as rangefinder-focus cameras with single fixed lens.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Spencer are you recommending the K1000 also? I am not sure but I have the feeling that those who recommend the K1000 either weren't around or were not into photography at the time Pentax introduced the K1000.</p>

[rossb]

<p>The day I got out of the Army in 1970 I bought a Pentax Spotmatic while I was hanging around Atlanta waiting for my flight. I enjoyed the camera. I suppose if it were not for the mercury battery thing I would rather have the Spotmatic for nostalgia reasons. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I have a K1000 and it's a decent camera that does its job well, but I have to agree that its cult status seems a bit overdone. Just about every major manufacturer made decent basic cameras that do the same thing, though few are as completely battery independent, and many less basic cameras allow all the manual functions. A Minolta X370 has a dead-on exposure meter, self timer, cheap lenses, and aperture priority and runs for years on a couple of silver oxide batteries. A Nikon (Cosina made) FM10 has a depth of field preview and a self timer and is not battery dependent. Yashica made a basic one too which worked very well, though I always found Yashica foam more likely to be bad.</p>

<p>Ross B, the Spotmatic, although it was made to use mercury batteries, is not finely voltage dependent like most such cameras, and can work with modern batteries. I have one and it meters just fine with a silver oxide battery. You can fit in a smaller battery and pad it out with an O ring. </p>

[AJG]

<p>I teach a beginning film photo class at a community college and we rent K 1000s at a nominal cost to students who don't have film cameras. I would never claim that the K 1000 is the greatest film camera ever made, but its simplicity and ruggedness make it a great choice for beginning students. I was certainly around when the K1000 was new, and my choice for my first serious SLR was a Pentax MX because it had a much better finder and metering system, user interchangeable focusing screens and was smaller and lighter than the K 1000. But I wouldn't recommend that model now for students as I think it would be less likely to withstand the kind of student use that our cameras get.<br>

The price on used K 1000s is very high relative to other older manual SLRs like Nikon FM, FM2, etc. when you compare features and capabilities, which is ironic when you consider that the K 1000 was so much cheaper than the other cameras when they were new on the market. But by now thousands of photography teachers have learned on them and have continued to recommend them to their students so the demand for them remains high, hence the price. Is it totally rational? No, but some traditions die hard.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>To answer your question BeBu, I almost certainly wouldn't recommend the K1000. If you were looking for something similar I'd say the Argus/Cosina STL1000 [for the aforementioned reasons], or in general a good camera- theNikon F3 [which is a little more expensive but a helluva lot better]. I wouldn't recommend a camera I haven't shot anyways.</p>

<p>I certainly wasn't around when the K1000 was introduced [i'm only 18 after all], but it seems that a lot of people my age will easily buy into the cult status of the K1000 and not give so much as half a glance at better more dependable cameras- especially because a lot of them believe that the camera is better than the glass [i've literally been told 'I've never heard of the Leica M2- must not be that good.' while this fine gentleman had a K1000 around his neck] but I digress.</p>

<p>Like I said not a terrible camera just not really a great idea considering the other options out there</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>@Bebu: Yes, I was only in 1st grade when the K1000 came out and started photography 7 years later. <br>

I settled my ex on a Seagull X300 (she wanted something of her own on a budged and MD glass looked cheaper than mine) and later on a D70. <br>

Unlike my SuperA ProgramA or LX the K1000 didn't let me down though. - I can easily agree that KX & MX are even lovelier cameras, Maginon K1000 Vivitar 2000 and Ricoh KR5 take pictures too. (Stupid me stocked up on k-mount film bodies between 84 and 04) And there are a lot of awesome SLRs in other systems too.<br>

<em>Today</em> a used K1000 seems like a stupid waste of money. - But this thread is about why it got it's reputation, isn't it? - So we are free to flip through the last 4 decades (since it came out) and partially argue on a early 80s tech level. <br>

I'm sure anybody keen to get started with photography and still capable of sponging manuals + further readings might be better served with a basic AF body from a system that entered the digital realm. <br>

Personally I am no longer into 35mm bells & whistles and believe the K1000 packs the basics. - I'm no big fan of its metering characteristic but a hand held meter is too expensive to recommend it to a beginner.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>For a while the K1000 was the top of the beginner's film camera list maybe because :<br>

there were lots of them about so they were relatively cheap<br>

there were large numbers of very good K-mount lenses by Pentax or Ricoh<br>

the K1000 controls and swinging needle meter were fairly easily grasped by a beginner.<br>

These days the Nikon FM2 / FM2n / FM3a has probably succeeded the Pentax though <em>all other things being equal</em> I would personally still think the K1000 would be the better bet. I was never keen on the FM2 traffic light meter with its rather uninformative half-stop steps. But things aren't equal. The K1000's about are usually older than the available Nikons and so less reliable. </p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Although I never owned a Pentax K1000 I did recommend it to a friend back in the eighties, who was just starting to get interested in photography. I did that based on it's reputation at the time which was excellent. For myself I've always regretted not buying the Pentax LX which I think is, and was, the most underrated camera ever made. It had a 30 second shutter speed while Nikon, and Canon had 16 seconds. It was well sealed from dust. It had fully mechanical, and electronic shutter speeds,(good if your battery died) and it was smaller, and lighter than it's competition. I never understood why it wasn't recognized for it's excellence, but I suppose even in those days people only equated Nikon, and Canon with serious photography.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>It was appreciated by photography teachers at a time (late 1970s and 1980s) when automatic features were becoming more available and cameras more complex and expensive. It encouraged the students to focus on the basics of exposure and composition. Completely manual controls assured that and the construction, nearly all metal, was quite robust. The production ceased in the mid 1990s as many components, including the light meter galvanometer became difficult to source. Production eventually moved to China and led to use of more plastic materials which lightened weight and reduced costs but made the camera less reliable. The top of the line LX was a different story, a very competent advanced camera. I tend to agree with Bruce's comments that the LX bettered the Nikon and Canon offerings of professional cameras at that time, but obviously the competitors had more marketing and communication savy than Pentax. </p>

<p>One wonders what sort of cameras are chosen by teachers today to teach the basics of exposure, focus and composition, and whether our much more recent automatic cameras are useful in that regard (lenses without DOF markings, etc.). Perhaps more attention is given to the photographic approach than to method or craft aspects?</p>

<p> </p>

[AJG]

<p>@Bruce--I agree that the LX was under rated, and I owned 4 of them at one point as my workhorse 35s for professional photography. In over a decade of hard use only one body needed a repair for a randomly failing frame counter. I still have two of them, and every time I pick one up I regret the poor viewfinders that most DSLRs have compared to the LX. I think you're right that most pros already had committed to Canon or Nikon with a large lens collection, so even the great camera the the LX was didn't cause them to switch.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Yeah, if I had it to do over again I would have bought the LX instead of the F3. Not because the F3 wasn't a great camera, but because the LX would have suited me, and my general photographic philosophy better. Water under the bridge at this point, but it keeps my mind more open about what is truly a great dslr these days.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>By the early 80s, the K1000 had already established a niche as the cheapest solidly built all manual SLR from any of the major Japanese manufacturers. I have a copy of 'Which Camera?' from 1983, a UK buyer's guide. The K1000 is listed at £80 (all prices are with a standard lens, usually a 50mm in the f/1.7 - f/2 range). At the time it cost £100 for a Minolta SRT 100X, £120 for an OM 1N, and £150 for a Nikon FM. Pentax's own MX was listed at £111. I guess the Canon AT-1 wasn't being sold here then; an AE-1P was £145. You could buy a Yashica FX-3 for £84, though the choice of third party lenses (a big deal at the time) was more limited. Fujica had the STX-1 for only £50, but with an even more limited range of lenses. Below that, you were looking at M42 Zenits and Prakticas. I suppose the price, solidity, availability of lenses, lack of automation and easy to understand match needle metering made it pretty much the default choice for a student camera, and the very long production run made sure it stayed that way. But in 2016, when even the high end pro models of similar vintage are available for very reasonable prices, there may well be better choices.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>I bought a K1000 in 1980 and used it for almost 20 years before selling it and I now wish I hadn't.<br>

What was good was that it was a very basic but very well made camera. The 50/2 lens that mine came with was excellent. The camera did everything that was asked of it.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>It's a cringe-worthy recommendation for at least a couple of reasons, not least that it pegs the age of many hanging out on forums, besides begging the question whether they ever shot anything newer or better?</p>

<p> </p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>I suppose it's more of a question of why is it still being recommended as the default go to student camera when there are better cheaper cameras with more features available [not talking frills such as motor winders or auto exposure, but basic things like a self timer]</p>

[AJG]

<p>@Spencer--IMHO, a self timer is one of the least essential features on a camera, something I may have used possibly 10 times in the last 40 years, so the lack of one on the K 1000 is pretty inconsequential for me. Also, the lack of a self timer inhibits redundant self portraits to a degree, and that's not a bad thing for student artists trying to develop their own style</p>