[Kunzite]

I wonder if, when people think of a digital K1000, they're thinking of Pentax marketing the cheapest FF DSLR around? The only way you could pull that off would be to minimize development costs by keeping it simple and selling it in volume, which I don't see happening during these days of falling camera sales across the board. Remember that the K1000 was manufactured for over 20 years, so its non-recurring costs were paid for early in its extended production run.

I'm sure they are.
Yet a cheapest FF DSLR has all the bells and whistles the market requires - to increase the sales. It compromises on build (K1000's metal body? Gone!), precision, reliability, ruggedness and performance where it costs money.
A cheapest DSLR would be the antithesis of a K1000.

[ecostigny]

I'm sure they are.
Yet a cheapest FF DSLR has all the bells and whistles the market requires - to increase the sales. It compromises on build (K1000's metal body? Gone!), precision, reliability, ruggedness and performance where it costs money.
A cheapest DSLR would be the antithesis of a K1000.

Absolutely. The K1000 was fully manual; it didn't even have a self timer. Contrast that simplicity with today's expectation that every camera, for example, has to be able to record at least 4K video. Not everyone needs 4K video, but it's considered a must-have and Pentax cameras are criticized in reviews for lacking it.

[fs999]

They should do a film SLR with SDM and DC support, as film is more and more trendy...

[ecostigny]

They should do a film SLR with SDM and DC support, as film is more and more trendy...

I'm not sure if a film camera is worth the effort right now, especially since most people probably think Pentax has joined Chinon and Yashica in the Great Camera Factory Park in the Sky. Then again, LP sales are about to surpass CD sales for the first time in over 30 years, so maybe the analog-is-cool-again wave will hit photography as well.

[Lord Lucan]

I think there has already been, for some time, a digital equivalent of the K1000. I mean the Sony A6000.

I have just had a look at what that is, and the only thing it has in common with the K1000 is that it is a commercial success.

I think there are people here and elsewhere who think that Pentax producing a digital K1000 would be a commercial success, but what they visualise by that "K1000-D" seems to vary with the individual.

Some see the definition of a K1000-D as anything that is a commercial success - the Sony A6000 above for example. What company does not want to produce a commercially successful camera? But these days no camera is likely to be that success if it looked, felt or acted like an old K1000 in any way whatsoever. But Pentax could just put a "K1000-D" sticker on any lower range camera if that's all it takes to sell it. However, times and people have moved on since 50 years ago* and despite its long production run I'm not sure that "K1000" now means anything to anyone on the right side of 60 unless they are knowledgable about camera history.

Others seem to see a K1000-D as a look-alike replica of an old K1000, with manual focus, manually set cloth shutter, sluggish needle metering, revived K-Series lenses, but having a CMOS sensor and a card slot. That won't happen for all sorts of technical and commercial reasons. In that vein there have been projects, usually kick-starters, to make digital backs for old film cameras and they have all been commercial and/or technical flops.

Others again seem to expect a K1000-D not to look like an old K1000, but like a modern APS-C digital with all exposure modes except manual blocked off, the LCD removed, and using lenses with their autofocus function disabled. Also with the video, SR, and continuous shooting disabled, and the ability to change ISO only permitted every 36 shots. At least that would be practicable - you could sell a version of eg the K-r with those restrictions done in the software. This would be to force people to learn the technicalities of exposure. Yeah, right.

The only realistic way of "reviving" the K1000 is simply using the name as a badge on something modern. If someone wants the real thing, there are plenty on Ebay, albeit at silly prices, although I suspect that most are only bought speculatively to be sold again at an even higher price, like a pyramid scheme.

* The K1000 was basically a Spotmatic, which were designed in the late 1960s.

[lesmore49]

Some thought the old Km digital was the second coming...digitally speaking of course...of the old K1000 film camera. I have both and both are good cameras, with basic spec. In the film days, the K1000, actually my wife's camera was the one I used most then, and the lens usually attached to it was my perennial favourite...a 35-105 'A' Macro zoom . A fine lens that with the K1000 was capable of producing excellent photos. Back then though, I wanted an LX, but cash flow and a young family...kept that body out of the equation.

The Km or K2000 as it was known in the States...was/is a good camera body. But I much prefer using my K5 and K1. Our young family has grown into adulthood and our cash flow has improved. I don't know if having a young family and not a big cash flow ...are connected, but I have my suspicions.

I've meandered somewhat, but I think what I wanted to say...is that pics I got with my wife's film K1000 and 35-105 and my digital Km with my 16-45mm are mostly indistinguishable from my K5 with those very same lenses. That may say more about my picture taking prowess than it does about the quality of camera bodies as distinguished by higher retail price. Are more expensive camera bodies, better than lesser expensive and lower down the line, camera bodies ...insofar as the actual image produced ?

For most ...typical.... photo situations...will an expensive body make a significant difference over that of a basic body ? I don't know.

But I do know, I bought my new Km in 2009, then when the K5 came out I absolutely had to have this new top of the range camera body, and so purchased it new in 2011...then when the K1 came out,...same deal...I 'needed' the K1 and picked one up in 2017.

The Km still works well and I use it. It is limited by the march of technological change...somewhat...but I seem, to like new and improved.

In that, I'm probably typical of many photo enthusiasts. I'm never content, even if logic dictates that I should be.

[Lord Lucan]

For most ...typical.... photo situations...will an expensive body make a significant difference over that of a basic body ? I don't know.

WRT the film cameras (as we had been talking about the K1000) : if you took the same picture with the same lens, film and exposure settings with a top-of-the-range LX and a bottom end K1000, the negatives would be indistinguishable from each other. The difference is the extra functional capabilities of the LX (motor drive, interchangeable finders etc), most or all of which would have been of no consequence to the 1980's family snapper - the exceptions to which were the lack of an auto mode and self-timer on the K1000. The lack of self-timer was strange for a camera aimed at the amateur market, although the KM, of which the K1000 was a cut-down version (and the Spotmatics from which the KM derived), had one

WRT to digital cameras, the difference of picture quality between bodies is primarily determined by the resolution, a straight-forward part of the specs. I understand that modern digital resolutions (ie 20+ Mpx) are better than the finest films ever had. Whether you need such resolution is another matter, probably not for most people and certainly not for posting pictures on the internet or viewing on smart phones.

[ecostigny]

WRT the film cameras (as we had been talking about the K1000) : if you took the same picture with the same lens, film and exposure settings with a top-of-the-range LX and a bottom end K1000, the negatives would be indistinguishable from each other. The difference is the extra functional capabilities of the LX (motor drive, interchangeable finders etc), most or all of which would have been of no consequence to the 1980's family snapper - the exceptions to which were the lack of an auto mode and self-timer on the K1000. The lack of self-timer was strange for a camera aimed at the amateur market, although the KM, of which the K1000 was a cut-down version (and the Spotmatics from which the KM derived), had one

WRT to digital cameras, the difference of picture quality between bodies is primarily determined by the resolution, a straight-forward part of the specs. I understand that modern digital resolutions (ie 20+ Mpx) are better than the finest films ever had. Whether you need such resolution is another matter, probably not for most people and certainly not for posting pictures on the internet or viewing on smart phones.

I started my Pentaxian ways with an ME Super body and decent third-party zooms shooting Kodachrome slide film. One of my friends dove into photography by purchasing $3,000.00 worth of Nikon gear--in 1985. When we took pictures of the same subject with the same film and compared slides afterward, we really couldn't see that much of a difference--and he was the first one to admit it. The higher cost gives you extra capabilities and ruggedness--there's no way an ME Super could survive what a Nikon F3HP can endure--but IQ does not improve significantly if you open your wallet more.

[VSTAR]

I started my Pentaxian ways with an ME Super body and decent third-party zooms shooting Kodachrome slide film. One of my friends dove into photography by purchasing $3,000.00 worth of Nikon gear--in 1985. When we took pictures of the same subject with the same film and compared slides afterward, we really couldn't see that much of a difference--and he was the first one to admit it. The higher cost gives you extra capabilities and ruggedness--there's no way an ME Super could survive what a Nikon F3HP can endure--but IQ does not improve significantly if you open your wallet more.

In those days the differences were not just the bodies but the line of lenses from each manufacturer. So sometimes you wanted a Nikon rather than a Pentax because of specific lenses. And sometimes certain bodies did have features the other brand did not have...internal metering, auto wonder intervalometer, accessories, etc. You are correct that sometimes an inexpensive body/lens versus expensive set up did not yield much difference in the final printed photo. But in many times in the darkroom, and with larger enlargements the differences were noticeable.

[ecostigny]

In those days the differences were not just the bodies but the line of lenses from each manufacturer. So sometimes you wanted a Nikon rather than a Pentax because of specific lenses. And sometimes certain bodies did have features the other brand did not have...internal metering, auto wonder intervalometer, accessories, etc. You are correct that sometimes an inexpensive body/lens versus expensive set up did not yield much difference in the final printed photo. But in many times in the darkroom, and with larger enlargements the differences were noticeable.

The breadth of the Nikon system is one of the reasons people bought into that brand; you could tap into it to do things that would have been impossible with another manufacturer (like using the massive 6mm fish eye lens whose field of view was so wide it was capable of seeing behind itself). We tended to compare our slides when projected onto a five foot screen, which gives you a better sense of IQ compared to a 4x6 print; however, poring over the slides on a light table with a good loupe might have revealed more significant differences.