K1000=additional lens or better body

mark_gunns · January 14, 2000

I currently own a Pentax K1000 and desire additional lenses for

photographing wildlife. Having read previous responses in concern to

the K1000 I understand it has limitations in the long run. As a

beginner photographer I want a camera that can grow with my skill. At

the same time I have extremely limited funds. Is it really not wise

to invest in my Pentax and why? What are your suggestions for a

replacement. Keep in mind my desire for a camera with manual options

and my limited monetary resources.

thanks,

mark

ydobon · January 14, 2000

You had better place a numerical value on your budget. Having followed this Q&A forum since its inception, it is very clear that people have wildly different opinions about "affordability". Everyone has limited monetary resources; not even <a href="http://www.webho.com/WealthClock">Bill</a> can say that he has unlimited funds.

graham_line · January 14, 2000

Wildlife = long lenses. It's also heavily dependent on personal knowledge, technique and time invested. Pentax has nice build quality and some nice new bodies like the ZX-7 and the ZX5M. You want to take a long hard look at their lens line for things in the 300 to 600 mm range and see if it will meet your future needs at a price you can pay. Lines like Canon, Minolta and Nikon which sell in higher volume in the US are more readily available used and are also available in rental programs at pro shops. Shutterbug or Pop Photo ads can give you an idea of prices.

mike_kowal · January 14, 2000

Mark,

A 'LIMITED BUDGET' is definitely something that must be considered when getting into this line of work as NOTHING comes without a SIGNIFICANT price tag, however, many camera manufacturers are now adapting their thought process toward the amateur and average consumer. It also depends on what your intentions are...shooting some snapshots or shooting for an editor's spec, etc. Don't try to overbudget yourself (my own personal opinion), especially if these photos are only for pleasure. Moving up to a different system should be taken into account if you think that you can do it without going broke (met a fellow who did this and LOST HIS FRICKIN' HOUSE...went WAY TOO DEEP and made NO MONEY!!!...I BOUGHT SOME OF HIS STUFF!!!) Mark, REMEMBER, though the equipment is sometimes an important part of the job, NOT ALWAYS is it a NECESSITY to have the BEST...you can have the best crap on the market and produce GARBAGE...and then, there are those out there who have little or next to nothing and produce some really spectacular images. Briefly, there is a kid that I've NEVER met who shoots with some Minolta camera (somethin' 7000...I believe...you Minolta users probably know what I'm referring to) and had a dozen of his shots up at a local mall...other than being a hair-off on his black & white printing ability, his images taken with that box and a normal, joe-blow zoom were FANTASTIC...they were taken at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and State Park)...and this is a kid. So, it doesn't matter what brand you shoot, although most of us prefer Nikon or Canon, it's what you know and how you apply your knowledge of what you know to produce not only something that is technically accurate, but an image that will be pleasing to your eye as well as others.

A few other things to think about...Prosumer (I think that's the way they term them now) lenses from Nikon and Canon both have Ultrasilent Zooms and Canon also incorporates an IMAGE STABILIZER into a few of its LESS EXPENSIVE lenses (28-135, eg)...I'm not a Nikon user, so, someone else maybe able to fill you in on the SILENT-WAVE deal that they have or any updates they may be doing to their line. The aforementioned lens costs about $500.00 (street price) and a decent body (maybe check into something like a DEMO or a verifiably good USED body), you can get for about the same price, or, in some cases, maybe a little less. The 400mm 2.8 and 600 4 IS that I shoot with, together would be able to buy you a new car. You also have to take into consideration, the film, batteries, tripod, ballheads, quick-release plates, equipment that breaks and being able to afford to fix it...I realize that you are just worrying about changing over, but these are things to consider in the future so that you don't get too far ahead of yourself.

Take your time, INVEST WISELY, and by all means, for the most part, don't let the guy at the camera shop take ya for a ride by telling ya...ya need this and that and if ya get that, you have ta buy this cuz if ya don't, that won't work right...H-E-DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS to those people...and don't get discouraged, there are GOOD camera sales people out there...many of em'!!! DO NOT LET THEM MAX YOUR CREDIT CARD OUT!!! Look at the Classifieds on this list, there are a GREAT MANY DECENT HUMAN BEINGS and PHOTOG's on this list that DON'T want your arm and leg!!! TAKE CARE and GOOD LUCK to you in your endeavors!!!

kenny_dunn · January 14, 2000

I have an old, beat up Mamiya 645 body and every time I think about getting a new body I instead end up getting a lens. I think for me this has worked best, but in your case if you are wanting to shoot wildlife you will about have to go with either a Canon or Nikon someday if you are serious.

cliffcalhoun · January 15, 2000

Mark,

Here are 3 options for you to consider.

1) Stay with your current Pentax system and buy the best MF lenses that you can afford.

2) Buy Pentax AF lenses and upgrade your bodies at a later time.

3) Switch to Canon or Nikon and gradually build you arsenal of lenses for nature/wildlife, and save for that super-telephoto.

Your choice depends on how motivated you are to shoot wildlife, and how much you want to invest in your equipment.

You will probably want to switch to Nikon or Canon if you ever want to buy a "pro quality" super-telephoto lens > 400mm. You simply have more options with Nikon or Canon.

Finally, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Pentax. If switching systems seems crazy to you, then stick with your present system, or move into Pentax AF, and buy the best lenses that you can afford.

Good luck.

bill_oneill · January 15, 2000

Hi Mark,

I�m not sure where some people get their information, but Pentax have 3 300mm lenses, 3 400mm lenses, 2 600mm lenses and a 1200mm lens in their current line-up. That�s just counting the pro-quality primes. They also make several zooms that go to 300mm and beyond including a 250-600 f5.6 EDIF AF.

Anyway, my advice would be to build on your collection of lenses. I would also consider making those lenses AF.

As far as changing brands goes, that is something you might consider if you have relatively little in the way of equipment right now. However, that decision should be made based on your perceived needs and a careful assessment of what each manufacturer offers. This is a useful exercise in your case because, as already mentioned, the pursuit of good wildlife images comes at considerable cost in equipment.

kristian_elof_sxrensen · January 16, 2000

Lenses and tripods are the parts of a wildlife photographers equipment that has influence on which images he can make and what technical quality they will have.

The ultimate wildlife lens for 35 mm cameras must be the <a href="http://www.pentax.se/">Pentax SMC-FA 250-600mm f/5,6 Star ED [iF]</A>(sorry their website is rich in content but built by incompetent people so you cannot link directly). Your K1000 will fit nicely on that lens, and apart fron no AF it's hard to see that a K1000 schould be a limit.

Get yourself a used 300 mm Pentax lens and a monopod to play around with. Then spend your money on film and processing, and divide your available photo time between reading up on wildlife and being out there studying wildlife.

You will get a lot out of studying your choosen wildlife from a long distance at all times of day for a period before starting shooting. This will teach you when you can expect to meet what kind of animals where, and thus enable you to place yourself and your camera at the right place at the right moment.

Many animals are creatures of habit. Knowing the habits of your choosen wildlife enables you to get good images. Running around in the forest with all Canons blazing will not get you anything usefull on fill.

john_tureli · January 16, 2000

You need to clarify what you mean by wild life. Your subject will

determine the focal length. Secondly, the K1000 is an ideal camera

but lacks the auto focus. I do not use AF but then I do not shoot

birds in flight. Many wonderful photographs have been taken

without AF. However, you can buy AF lenses and if you later

decide you cannot do without AF, just get a PZ-1p later.

Secondly, to the many posters before me: Pentax has so many

telephoto lenses in the line up that you would be surprised.

You can goto www.pentax.com and order a brochure outlining

accessories and lenses for Pentax 35mm, 645, 67 format systems.

One reason to go into the Pentax system is the compatibility

of all K mount lenses with even the newest bodies. You can

also get a Kmount-screw adapter and use excellent line of

Pentax screw lenses. The quality of Pentax telephotos is equal

or better than Nikon or Canon. In addition, if you decide to

go medium format via pentax 645 or Pentax 67, you can use the

tele lenses for those lenses with an adapter!

You can easily buy pentax telephoto lenses used in ebay,

newsgroups or from reputable dealers. In fact, if you

are into serious teles. I would advise you, 135mm f2.5, 200mm f4,

300mm f4 and 500mm f4.5 which will not only rival but surpass

all similar optics from Canon, Nikon, Zeiss whatever.

bobatkins · January 16, 2000

Let's not get caught up in which optics are "best". I'm not inclined to allow statements like "X optics are better than Y" unless the poster cites a reliable reference - and even then I'd greatly prefer if they didn't make such statements at all. I'm tired of seeing such claims in other forums and I (and the other moderators here) won't let this forum fall into that trap.

Pentax optics are perfectly fine. When it comes down to obtaining high quality images, the better lenses from all the major lens makers are quite capable of doing the job. 3rd paty lenses are the same no matter which brand of body you mount them on.

The major reasons to upgrade from a K1000 would be to get things like spot or matrix metering, a motor drive, faster shutter speeds and flash sync and, of course, autofocus. All these things can be very useful for wildlife work.

john_tureli · January 16, 2000

Bob,

How about what makes K1000 such a good body? All metal construction,

full size body to absorb mirror shock, no battery operation, balance

medium-to-normal telephoto very well etc. In fact, apart from

top speed of 1/1000, K1000 can only be rivaled with Nikon FM,FM2 or

Contax SB(not many telephotos), Olympus OM1 (not very many telephotos here), Minolta SRT (not very many telephotos) etc. I have found

1/1000 to stop Blue Angels, when used with a telephoto, do you

really need more? Can you give example to practical application

of 1/2000 .... 1/12000 ?

So before you mention possible disadvantages, mention all these

features that make K1000 such a good body for this purpose.

I remember seeing some pictures on the web taken with a Canon 600mmf4?

tele (is it on your site, I cannot recall). The bokeh sucks. These kind of qualities are important so

if the moderators are not aware of such issues, we cannot discuss

these on photo.net?

bruce_rubenstein___nyc · January 17, 2000

If you want to shoot wildlife, on a tight budget, and do it with decent quality, you'll be looking for used 3rd party 300mm & 400mm lenses. There are darn few around in K-mount. If you expect to move up to original maker, AF lenses, there are even fewer Pentax lenses around. There are very few people who have Pentax based systems for this type of photography, so there's not much of a market for buying and selling long, fast, expensive Pentax glass.

john_tureli · January 17, 2000

Bruce, there is a web site called www.ebay.com. Just go there

and do a search for 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 1000mm, 2000mm and

see how many Pentax K mount, screw mount, 645, 67 mount lenses

are going on. You will be surprised.

On the other hand, if you are not into AF I think the best deal

in tele gear in Canon FD (the manual mount focus lenses before EOS).

The lenses are good and as you said there are many professionals

that used Canon gear that are upgrading to Nikon (after they

feel cheated) or loyally to Canon just to find out that Canon

just changed the mount again.-) (not yet)These lenses can be

found second hand very cheap. I just got an Canon AL-1, manual focus

confirmation SLR. It is so neat, has aperture priority and

I thought about sellling my other 35mm gear and begin collecting the

FD gear. But I will try to collect the tele lenses 300mm,

400mm, 500mm from Pentax first.-)

If you like Tamron, their adaptall system can be used on many

excellent but discontinued cameras like Fujica X series, MInolta

MD, Canon FD, Rolleiflex 35 etc. But I find just due to this, the

prices of Tamron gear is comparable to body builder's lenses.

It is a tough call.

TO the original poster: Since you briefly mentioned your interests,

I will suggest you get a 80-200mm f4 zoom for Pentax K mount since

these are relatively inexpensive ~$50-90 and as bright as many

200mm etc. There are tradeoffs like resolution, contrast and

little distortion but it will be easier to carry around and you

can even add a cheap 2x converter and see if you need a more tele.

That will give you from 80mm f4 to 400mm f8. The zooms were more

expensive when new and are not so much in demand nowadays in the

second hand market. It is because the older fixed lenses are nearly

as good as the new ones so the fixed lenses are very much in demand

even if they are manual focus.

bobatkins · January 17, 2000

Though many of the Canon FD lenses are superb (and relatively cheap), I'd caution against "investing" in them unless you are SURE you never want to go the AF route in the future. If you do, you'll have to dump them and start again.

If you go the Nikon MF route, you at least have some sort of capabilities with most of the AF bodies, even if you lose some of the metering modes etc. The transition to AF is a little smoother. I suppose the same applies to Pentax, except that it's probably 10 times easier to find the used Nikon lens you want than the Pentax equivalent (assuming there is one), since there are so many more Nikon lenses out there on the used market.

john_tureli · January 17, 2000

Bob, Nikon is more abundant in several extreme telephotos

but the demand is more as well. You can get the same focal length Pentax lenses if you look hard enough. In addition, Pentax does not have the sort of problems that plague Nikon, i.e. same bayonet but serious imcompatibilities between early lenses and new bodies. If you are interested, there are web sites documenting problems and misconceptions on Nikon F mount imcompatibility. I also find that a lot of Nikon gear indeed used by professionals are in marginal shape rather than Pentax gear which can be found in mint condition. If you look at lens tests in Modern Photo in late 1970s and early 1980s of the Nikon lenses vs Pentax lenses, in short and medium teles, Pentax is better in flare mitigation, resolution and bokeh. Pentax long teles have very good reputation as well. The most important advantage of Pentax is the coating, which was unavailable to other manufacturer's until the patents expired couple of years ago. The only lens coating that surpasses Pentax is Fujinon EBC, but telephoto EBC lenses are rare. Other coming close but not coatings include Zeiss T*, Rollei HFT. In fact, for wide angle and macro, I think Olympus is very good.

For normal and telephoto, Pentax lenses are excellent. The forte of

the Pentax system is telephoto. Look at the lens line for P67 and

you will soon understand why people switch to it from Hasselblad.

Nikon and Canon have had professional services for a long time and

in a sense bribed them to get recognition. It does not mean their lenses or cameras are superior.

A K1000 is a copy of the excellent spotmatic, an old fashion camera but definetely on the league of Canon FTb, Nikkormat,ie. a big Nikon FM. These are basically cameras that are the equal of the professional Canon F1 etc. but without removable prisms/accessories and auto exposure. A K1000 does not have a current equivalent. It is tougher than the top ofthe line PZ-1p. It is the ideal simple and intuitive camera. It has feature for feature, better specs than a Leica M6 TTL that costs what $2500? . Vow!

dick_bolton · January 17, 2000

About 1981 I switched from Nikon to take advantage of the downsized

Pentax line of SLR cameras. I used the MX model bodies and eventually

acquired five of them plus an ME. Also had a bunch of autowinders. In

time I picked up 13 Pentax lenses (some duplicates with used bodies)

from 24mm to 400mm including goodies like the 85mm f/2 (super-duper

sharp and compact), 135mm f1.8 (perfect basketball lens) and 200mm

f/2.8 (good for high school football games on Friday night, and

theatre work). This stuff got regular pro use for years, but then

Pentax quit supporting the bodies with parts and my local repair guy

no longer would even clean and lubricate.

Last year ('99) I dumped the Pentax stuff and switched back to . . .

Nikon. The everyday kit includes a F3 with drive, F5, 24mm, 35mm,

85mm, 180mm and 300mm AF lenses plus Nikon flash. It's a solid setup

for newspaper assignments I do, and parts of it go with me to document

hiking trips.

My Nikon gear is bigger and heavier than the Pentax stuff. And it is

battery-dependent. But those are the only relative disadvantages I

find with it.

On the plus side, the Nikon autofocus system is fast and accurate, and

improves results especially when shooting sports action. The metering

systems are uncannily good. Best of all, Nikon has made a sucessful

effort to minmize obsolesence: For example, I still can use the 500mm

f/8 Nikkor mirror lens from 1972 that I held onto from my earlier

(1970s) Nikon days.

Bottom line:

My advice to you, Mark -- if you have professional aspirations -- is

to go with one of the biggies (Nikon or Canon) to build a system that

is well supported by the manufacturer. Nikon seems to have an edge

when it comes to the obsolesence issue (not insignificant, I can say

from experience) but Canon as many, many loyal owner-users in the pro

ranks. A few well-chosen tools of high quality can do a lot of great

work. I can tell you, also, the new systems make a snap out of very

sophisticated use of techniques like flash fill. The unhappy truth

is, competing as a pro these days well may mean stepping up to these

lines of gear (or comparable). This is especially true in the

newspaper game, but also applies in the pictorial business. Look

around at what's being done day in and day out in your areas of

interest these days, and pick your equipment accordingly if you want

"in."

If you are content with amateur status, your equipment needs will not

be quite so great or expensive.

Now, if you are bent on sticking with Pentax, Mark, I suggest you shop

patiently for steals on used old camera bodies (for use and parts) and

good older Pentax lenses that are compatible with the K-1000, MX or

LX. The Pentax lenses I had were optically and mechanically excellent,

and if you can find comparable, you will have decent stuff to work

with under many conditions.

Jim_Tardio · January 17, 2000

Without a doubt your Pentax is a fine camera as is the entire line of Pentax goodies. As to a camera that will grow with your skill, you'll be better off with a Nikon or Canon. You'll probably very soon want AF and metering options. Now, I know Pentax offers these things, but for wildlife you'll simply have more options with Nikon or Canon.

The old stuff is nice, I agree. I have a soft spot in my heart for my old FM. But once you use the modern equipment you'll be spoiled. I suspect you know this already or you wouldn,t ask the question. If you stay with your K-1000 you'll always have an eye on the "new" stuff. No need to rid yourself of your old Pentax (it's not worth much anyway), but IMO it's not a camera system to build on.

john_tureli · January 17, 2000

Dick, as a professional you have different concerns than the rest of us such as using the lens pool in your paper. I am sorry about your experience with the MX, but I know that in Seattle, you can get a similar vintage, electronic (more difficult) ME Super repaired locally for $100. I think you should have looked over the Internet and asked this question. There is a repairsman for every camera ever built in this country. The other thing is MX and LX are the pro equipment. I think LX and K-1000 are still supported in parts and service by Pentax. The original poster did not ask this so I did not go into other K mount bodies.You can get mint condition Pentax K mount bodies literally for ever. Last year, I got a mint ME and a Ricoh KR-30sp. Anyways, what is supported by the manufacturer is not a big deal since there are plenty of used cameras to cannibalize and for mechanical cameras, it is easy to machine a part if you cannot get it. Can you say this for electronic metering that often goes bad in Nikon FG?? Best of all, the repair manuals for most Pentax bodies are sold in ebay, just get one and repair your own camera. It is just that easy. There are plenty of people who build their own dragsters etc. in their backyards, how difficult is machining a brass gear and putting it together. For God's sake, get Autocad LT or download a free CAD program and draw the part and give it to a machinist and get over with it.

bruce_rubenstein___nyc · January 17, 2000

To the person that suggested that I take a look on Ebay -

I used Pentax gear for 20 years and bought many items on Ebay. I now use Nikon. The mount incompatibility between AI and non-AI Nikon lenses is no worse, and probably better than K and screw mount Pentax lenses. Nikon bodies, such as the FE and FM can use almost all Nikon lenses ever made. There is a lot of cheap Pentax stuff out there, but a lot of it is no-name junk. Genuine Pentax K mount lenses, below 28mm and above 200mm, are neither cheap or plentiful.

john_tureli · January 17, 2000

Bruce, you are very experienced so this may not apply to you. SOme

pre AI lenses will damage newer AF bodies. Is this not serious for

the person who asks us the original question?

dick_bolton1 · January 18, 2000

It's a standing joke in our house that "you know you've reached an age

of maturity when all your stuff is at least 20 years old."

I certainly loved my Pentax equipment all the years I used it, and

kissing it goodbye last year when I made the change back to Nikon left

me a little bit wistful. For 20 years my Pentax cameras and lenses

were reliable, comfortable and worthy tools. But like many mechanical

things, they started to show the wear and tear that inevitably comes

of use, so it was time to do some serious decision-making.

All bickering aside over what system is best, my most heartfelt advice

to Mark, who launched the discussion, is this:

The equipment you choose and use doesn't necessarily reflect your

skill level. A basic mechanical camera like the K-1000 in the hands

of a highly skilled and knowledgeable photog can produce images that

will compare in both artistic and technical quality with those coming

out of the latest high end model with all the toots and whistles. The

ironic truth, though, is that in relatively unskilled hands a high end

up-to-the-minute model probably will shoot circles around the K-1000,

at least in the technical sense. One compensating factor here,

though, is that using the K1000 to produce sharp, properly exposed

images on film requires real skills and knowledge, which quickly

develop in those who are determined to learn. That's why the K-1000

has long been regarded as the near-perfect "student" camera.

If your K-1000 is working reliably for you and you're happy with it,

continue using it. To support your wildlife photo aspirations, look

around for deals on good used Pentax telephotos in the focal lengths

that interest you, and buy what you think you need. Try out the

system you assemble this way. Evaluate your experiences, results,

continuing interests, etc., with an eye toward deciding what changes

-- if any -- you'd like to make in your setup. Keep an open mind

about these issues. New stuff or more stuff isn't always the answer,

but it isn't always not the answer, either.

I know this advice is a lot more philosophcal than specific, but

photography is as much art as it is science and technology. There are

no universal "right" answers to questions like that posed by Mark --

each of us has to find his own way and experience, more than any other

thing, is perhaps the best way to find them.

I think it might be interesting to hear back from Mark in a few months

or so, to see what his decision and resulting experiences hav

dick_bolton1 · January 18, 2000

It's a standing joke in our house that "you know you've reached an age

of maturity when all your stuff is at least 20 years old."

I certainly loved my Pentax equipment all the years I used it, and

kissing it goodbye last year when I made the change back to Nikon left

me a little bit wistful. For 20 years my Pentax cameras and lenses

were reliable, comfortable and worthy tools. But like many mechanical

things, they started to show the wear and tear that inevitably comes

of use, so it was time to do some serious decision-making.

All bickering aside over what system is best, my most heartfelt advice

to Mark, who launched the discussion, is this:

The equipment you choose and use doesn't necessarily reflect your

skill level. A basic mechanical camera like the K-1000 in the hands

of a highly skilled and knowledgeable photog can produce images that

will compare in both artistic and technical quality with those coming

out of the latest high end model with all the toots and whistles. The

ironic truth, though, is that in relatively unskilled hands a high end

up-to-the-minute model probably will shoot circles around a K-1000

used by somebody of comparable accomplishment, at least in the

technical sense. One compensating factor here is that using the K1000

to produce sharp, properly exposed images on film requires real skills

and knowledge, which quickly develop in those who are determined to

learn. That's why the K-1000 has long been regarded as the

near-perfect "student" camera.