The shutter in Pentax K1000 that I bought back in 2020 started locking up. I took it to my local camera repair store (shout-out Kiwi), and they said it'd be more cost-effective to buy a new camera than repair the K1000, as the camera would have to be disassembled, cleaned, lubriacted, etc. and then reassembled.
(Price of the service? $300+. Price I paid for the K1000? $100 in 2020. So yeah, I get the reasoning.)
That said, I'm still going to hold onto the camera because of its sentimental value (And I'll eventually get it fixed, also because of sentimental value), but I think it could be the perfect excuse to buy an upgrade–but which camera to buy?
Since I already have a film camera capable of full auto everything (Canon Rebel T2), I'd prefer something a bit more manual. I'd also like a camera body that accepts K-mount lenses, because I have a pretty decent collection so far. I'd also like to keep the price under $400 if at all possible. (The less expensive, the better.)
A Pentax from around the same time like the MX looks to check most of the boxes, but I'd appreciate any input.
If looking to retain those K-mount lenses, Pentax K1000 SE? It adds split-screen focus to the “regular” K1000.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
The SE is a pretty solid choice. It would be a pretty similar experience to the "normal" K1000.
Yeah, pretty much the same camera. Have you used a camera with split-screen focusing? If you want, you can try one of mine. For me, at least, it’s a big deal.
The MX is pretty good though I actually don't like the Pentax "Magic Fingers" take-up spool. A K2 or K2 DMD along with the MX would probably be my picks from Pentax; an LX might be nice as well but I don't think they're the cheapest camera to maintain.
My favorite K-mount camera that I've spent time using myself is my Ricoh XR7. There are some rebadges of that camera as well, like the Sigma SA-1 or Sears KSX-1000 (I think that's the right Sears model, it's something like that anyway) if you get lucky and see one for a good price. Comes with automatic exposure mode and an electronic shutter which is maybe a plus to you (it is to me) but also is more complicated vs. a K1000 or MX. It's not a great low light camera due to the light meter display being an LCD that lacks illumination, but batteries last forever in that thing and it's just nice all around. I also like the Chinon CE-4 and CE-4s which was rebadged as the Revue AC-3 and maybe some other things.
Short version: Ricoh XR7 is great, Chinon CE-4 and -4s are nice as well, K2 always interested me and would feel like a cross between an MX and a K1000.
In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
Thanks for the recommendations. I'll add all of them to my list of potentials.
Well, if you're interested, I could just pass on to you the Minolta camera and lenses that have been taking up space in my closet for 20+ years.
In reply to Karacticus :
Yeah, I think I'd be interested in that, regardless of whether or not it's what I'm in the market for.
Any more details you can share?
One thing I want to mention is that I'm left eye dominant, so my right eye is placed behind the frame advance lever, so I always prefer a camera that does not require the advance lever to be pulled out for the camera to function. A *lot* of cameras from that era require the advance lever to be pulled out from the stop, leaving it to hang out over the body a bit, which I do not want at all.
If you don't have this issue you have a ton of choices that I wouldn't consider. Whole pile of Ricoh's for instance.
Let me see if I can inventory what I've got this evening.
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:
One thing I want to mention is that I'm left eye dominant, so my right eye is placed behind the frame advance lever, so I always prefer a camera that does not require the advance lever to be pulled out for the camera to function. A *lot* of cameras from that era require the advance lever to be pulled out from the stop, leaving it to hang out over the body a bit, which I do not want at all.
If you don't have this issue you have a ton of choices that I wouldn't consider. Whole pile of Ricoh's for instance.
Yes, I’ll second that. I’m also left-eye dominant even through I bat/throw righty. In order to use my wife’s Ricoh, yeah, the advance lever has to be pulled out. It’s not my fave.
FWIW, you know I’m a big Canon fan. I’m also surprised that the A-1 doesn’t sell for more. This doesn’t help with your current lenses, though.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
I think the Canon A-1 would be more popular if it didn't use the FD mount. I've never worked with an FD-mount camera so I could be wrong, but I think this is probably part of it.
If you're married to the K-mount lenses, the K-1000 or some variant thereof looks to be your best choice, given the large numbers of available camera bodies and the competence, durability, and continuing popularity of the K-1000. It never hurts to have a few extra bodies.
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:
In reply to David S. Wallens :
I think the Canon A-1 would be more popular if it didn't use the FD mount. I've never worked with an FD-mount camera so I could be wrong, but I think this is probably part of it.
Huge FD fan here–both the original breach-mount and the newer model–since I was like 12 or 13.
I can see that the breach-mount lenses might not work for everyone–after all, you need two hands to mount and dismount–but I have found them very reliable along with a wide range of specs. I currently carry a 50/1.8, 100/2.8 and 24/2.8. If I had to do it all over again, I’d still go FD. :)
If anyone is interested, follow the link to the Minolta SLR and lenses that's been in my possession going on something like 40 years.
No autofocus here.
I'd be willing to send it on for the cost of shipping.
Sorta related, you can learn about Canon cameras and lenses at the Canon Camera Museum.
Karacticus said:
If anyone is interested, follow the link to the Minolta SLR and lenses that's been in my possession going on something like 40 years.
No autofocus here.
I'd be willing to send it on for the cost of shipping.
I'd be interested in that setup. I'll pm you with my contact info because I don't check the email I used to register here.
Steve
In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
My wife has a Rocoh-built Sears KS-500. She got it for free at the Kiwi swap meet. The seals were missing, so she replaced them. Something was occasionally hanging up inside, but she says it seems better. Maybe it sat too long? Anyway, yeah, another K-series option.
I am not too knowledgeable on film cameras but my only advice would be that if you have invested in a lens system look for something that can still use those lenses you already own instead of buying into a whole new system and starting the collection over.
Maybe this event could help answer some questions, too.
In fact, looks like there’s now a film/lo-fi photo club in Ormond Beach: Lo-Fi Photo Ormond.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
Rather a discussion for a different time, but I would point out that while film photography is relatively "low tech" it most certainly is not "low fidelity" as even the best digital systems are still chopping the image into chunks and trying to approximate an analog image.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
100% agree. You can definitely get some really high-quality images from film.
For lack of a better way of putting it, some film photographers–and I'll group myself in–enjoy shooting photos that might be really grainy, full of light leaks and are under- or overexposed. It's a look that you can really only get on film.
To me, FWIW, lo-fi means authentic. Not Photoshopped or AI’d to the point of looking fake. Capture it in the camera.
I figure everyone can have their own definition as, for me, it’s more about the mood than the number of pixels.
Colin, check this out:
The post itself mentions cameras for sale, too.
