[bigdavephoto]

I have been reading (and a couple of post on) this thred and I keep wondering what would people do if Pentax had grabbed a film K1000 and converted it to digital. What I mean is the same body but with a digital back and controles. Would anybody like it and or buy it?

[monochrome]

I have been reading (and a couple of post on) this thred and I keep wondering what would people do if Pentax had grabbed a film K1000 KX and converted it to digital. What I mean is the same body but with a digital back and controles. Would anybody like it and or buy it?

Fixed it for you

[bigdavephoto]

Fixed it for you

K1000, KM, KX, A3/A3000, Spotmatic, Whatever but you see what I am saying.

[JimJohnson]

I have been reading (and a couple of post on) this thred and I keep wondering what would people do if Pentax had grabbed a film K1000 and converted it to digital. What I mean is the same body but with a digital back and controles. Would anybody like it and or buy it?

Honestly? If the back cost no more than 2/3 of a K-x or K-r, I think most of the Pentax film K series owners would have jumped at it ... K-1000, ME (supper ... super program), and so on. I believe the back size and sensor placement is the same for all these cameras - or at least close enough that an interchangeable plate would do it.

I suspect there are a TON of people who have these cameras lingering on a closet shelf for the same reason I do - - it's hard to find a variety of film types, and we would rather have the convenience of digital. I know of at least 3 among other members of my family. Pentax could bring a bunch of us back into the fold that drifted to fixed lens digital cameras of other brands (because we can't afford the higher end Pentax dSLR cameras - K-5 or 7). Those film Pentax SLRs have a lot of intrinsic value to their owners, but aren't worth a song on the general market. (anybody want to swap me a DA L 55-300 kit lens for a Super Program body in excellent shape - I'll even toss in a ME II auto-winder and TTL flash? No? Didn't think so.)

[revdocjim]

So it was my ugly little homemade viewfinder or carry around a head cloth like a late 19th century large frame camera photographer. The viewfinder is a lot more acceptible on a busy urban sidewalk or high school sporting event.

Speaking of ugly little homemade viewfinder, I adapted the WLF of a Pentax 6x7 for use with my NEX5 and it actually works pretty good, even though it's not "little" at all.

[monochrome]

Nah... the K-5 is at $ 1000 now.

Besides, that's not the point, people who want a K-5 can just buy a K-5. The point is that they released a camera that, performance-wise, is just as good as the K-5, but is crippled since it just takes away features (VF, WR) without adding anything back.

• 81 point CDAF autofocus
• Prime M imaging engine
• HDMI port
• Stereo microphones
• Probably some other stuff

How good is a body $ 300 cheaper if you can't even use it? Not to mention that it featuring a K-mout is close to useless. Using it with anything other than AF primes will be an lesson in bad ergonomics, since you have to hold it at arms-length. Double-failure.

We've been through this but you refuse to think. You don't need to hold it at arms length. You hold your elbows close to your sides and raise the LCD 8" from your nose. It is a stable platform to focus and shoot.

Did you try what I explained? Did you get an MESuper and hold it with your elbows next to your sides and look at the film holder?

The ergonomics are actually brilliant!! There's enough area and mass to actually cradle the camera in your left hand, wrap your right hand around the side and hold it the way we were taught in photography class (and Pentax Manuals).

Manual focusing a K200/2.5 will probably be impossible - sure - I have dSLR for that. I don't need a dSLR for 75% of what I do, so it is a less expensive K-5 where I'm NOT buying stuff I don't want or need, and getting stuff I can't get on any other Pentax. I guess I'm not a sophisticated camera user (I won't claim to be a photographer).

Its just a different combination of features at a different price than what you want. Nothing more. Nothing less. Noting EVIL. No threat.

And I have a Tilley Hat to shield the LCD on sunny days.

Bet you won't even try.

[GeneV]

We've been through this but you refuse to think. You don't need to hold it at arms length. You hold your elbows close to your sides and raise the LCD 8" from your nose. It is a stable platform to focus and shoot.

Actually, for many of us with eyes in the 55+ range you do have to hold it at arm's length, or wear readers and not be able to see the subject directly. It is the main reason I don't use live view on a DSLR as much as I might.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 02-06-2012 at 06:54 AM.

[kadajawi]

I have been reading (and a couple of post on) this thred and I keep wondering what would people do if Pentax had grabbed a film K1000 and converted it to digital. What I mean is the same body but with a digital back and controles. Would anybody like it and or buy it?

If the price wouldn't be ridiculous, then yes, on the very first day I can afford it. Ideally it would be full frame, and it should support AF lenses (i.e. have the contacts and motors), it should also keep a decent (though not necessarily overkill) exposure meter and support P, Av, Tv as well as M (not necessarily through a program mode dial, an A setting on the shutter speed dial and the (added) aperture ring (that is, the lens mount should stick out a bit from the camera so there is space for an electric aperture ring for lenses that don't have it) would be perfectly fine. There's no need for a film advance lever and a rewind lever, it should be a modern camera (i.e. a display would be nice). Like the modern interpretation of a classic. There is no need for scene modes, and I could do without JPEG support, like the Sigma SD9 and 10 (video would be nice though).

Basically a camera that doesn't try to stick as close as possible to the original, but that is a modern interpretation of it. The Epson R-D1 is going a bit too far perhaps, but somewhere in that area.

A pure digital back is something else. Would be cool, but really it's a bit hard to implement I guess.

If you can zoom in 100% while manually focusing, then a mirrorless camera is actually better.

I've fiddled with the highest end mirrorless Sony alpha camera today (well, it has a mirror, but it isn't used for the viewfinder), and the optical viewfinder wasn't that bad actually. It could have been bigger and brighter, and the colors looked a bit off, and there was some lag, but you could actually focus very well with it (they mounted a 2.8, and I couldn't activate a magnification mode (didn't find it). I couldn't zoom in on the photos as there was no memory card in them, but it looked pretty sharp to me. I think that's what is currently possible (it's a pretty expensive camera), and to me it isn't good enough (for me to spend around 1000 Euro on a mirrorless... and don't you expect to pay any less than that, those with an EVF are very expensive if they use a good EVF), but it will soon be. So Newson will design a new camera that has a EVF, the best that will be available, and you guys will be happy. And I will look at the price and think... I'll take a K-5.

Btw., the Canon superzoom that I also use doesn't have an EVF. I don't really mind. It would be nice to have, but then again I often shoot video with it, and then it is usually mounted to a tripod. A tilting or even detachable screen would be wonderful though. Even without a tripod it's not much of an issue though, if your eyes work well (well, for composing purposes).

[Geoff H]

Actually, for many of us with eyes in the 55+ range you do have to hold it at arm's length, or wear readers and not be able to see the subject directly. It is the main reason I don't use live view on a DSLR as much as I might.

Ding - I had to sell my Samsung EX-1 because by the time the damn thing was far enough away i couldn't see detail.

I'm guessing of course, but I'd be willing to bet that 30% of the market for prosumer cameras have the same problem, i.e. anyone who needs reading glasses and has the income to blow 500Euro+ on a camera - for those screen only cameras are not even an option.

[monochrome]

Actually, for many of us with eyes in the 55+ range you do have to hold it at arm's length, or wear readers and not be able to see the subject directly. It is the main reason I don't use live view on a DSLR as much as I might.

Huh. I guess I have a minority position on this issue. It isn't worth the disagreement until I actually have one in my hands. FWIW a viewfinder is actually difficult for me to use.

I'm 56. I wear tri-focals full-time, sunglasses and regular. I have peripheral vision loss due to late-diagnosed glaucoma and for the time being cataracts in my right eye. It sounds worse than it is because I intentionally develop coping mechanisms. For instance, I changed from right eye VF use to left eye - took a few months to get comfortable. OK - so what?

Maybe I should just sell all my stuff and sit around, but I still try.

When using LCD focus confirmation (or a compact) I hold the camera about chin level, 8" - 10" from my face, left palm supporting and right hand controlling, elbows in at my sides, like an old SLR. I never hold anything at arms' length. I look slightly down at the LCD. It works for me. I think it would work well with lighter shorter lenses with the K-01 due to the thickness and shape. Manual focus especially will probably be hard to use longer than 135mm.

It probably won't work at all with long lenses, but I have a dSLR and film bodies for that. Jury is out on the 55~300 - we'll see.

I wear a Tilley Hat (3 1/2" soft brim) to shade the LCD when necessary, which works because the LCD is close to my face. If that doesn't work (like when bright sunlight is coming directly over my left shoulder), well then I don't take that picture. Bummer. But if I need the shot I have a dSLR.

This seems like a good way to get a K-5 sensor and the features I actually use. Maybe I'll be disappointed and end up with an expensive P&S like most people use for Christmas pictures, or maybe not. Maybe I'll be disappointed when the K-02 is released with an EVF, all the modes, K-5 4-way button positions, WR, etc. Maybe not. Probably not at $1400.

I guess we'll all know in about 6 weeks. If I get it I'll do a video and some stills of my holding technique and post it for everyone's comments. Worst thing that happens to me is I sell it for $599 here. Won't be the first time, won't be the last.

I hope so many of us think about how they could use this camera instead of just dismissing it because it is different from what they have now.

[monochrome]

Actually, for many of us with eyes in the 55+ range you do have to hold it at arm's length, or wear readers and not be able to see the subject directly. It is the main reason I don't use live view on a DSLR as much as I might.

I'm responding mostly to his dismissive tone, not his assertion. K-mount is not useless. lack of VF does not make the camera useless.

[Pentax Bob]

I am very disappointed in this introduction. I hope this is a hangover from Hoya and not a Richo idea. A DSLR without a viewfinder is not in the cards for me. I am glad they kept the K mount. Hope they do a better job with the replacement for the K-5 and K-r. If this is it, I will have to jump ship when my K-x wares out.!! I have been using Pentax cameras for 40 + years but enough already.

[eddie1960]

I am very disappointed in this introduction. I hope this is a hangover from Hoya and not a Richo idea. A DSLR without a viewfinder is not in the cards for me. I am glad they kept the K mount. Hope they do a better job with the replacement for the K-5 and K-r. If this is it, I will have to jump ship when my K-x wares out.!! I have been using Pentax cameras for 40 + years but enough already.

the K01 is not a DSLR it's an entry-mid level mirrorless. the kr replacement (which is likely this camera with OVF) will be the DSLR so no need to jump yet. K5 replacement will probably be a lot of the processing here, improved af and 24mp sony sensor

[GeneV]

Huh. I guess I have a minority position on this issue. It isn't worth the disagreement until I actually have one in my hands. FWIW a viewfinder is actually difficult for me to use.

I'm 56. I wear tri-focals full-time, sunglasses and regular. I have peripheral vision loss due to late-diagnosed glaucoma and for the time being cataracts in my right eye. It sounds worse than it is because I intentionally develop coping mechanisms. For instance, I changed from right eye VF use to left eye - took a few months to get comfortable. OK - so what?

Maybe I should just sell all my stuff and sit around, but I still try.

When using LCD focus confirmation (or a compact) I hold the camera about chin level, 8" - 10" from my face, left palm supporting and right hand controlling, elbows in at my sides, like an old SLR. I never hold anything at arms' length. I look slightly down at the LCD. It works for me. I think it would work well with lighter shorter lenses with the K-01 due to the thickness and shape. Manual focus especially will probably be hard to use longer than 135mm.

It probably won't work at all with long lenses, but I have a dSLR and film bodies for that. Jury is out on the 55~300 - we'll see.

I wear a Tilley Hat (3 1/2" soft brim) to shade the LCD when necessary, which works because the LCD is close to my face. If that doesn't work (like when bright sunlight is coming directly over my left shoulder), well then I don't take that picture. Bummer. But if I need the shot I have a dSLR.

This seems like a good way to get a K-5 sensor and the features I actually use. Maybe I'll be disappointed and end up with an expensive P&S like most people use for Christmas pictures, or maybe not. Maybe I'll be disappointed when the K-02 is released with an EVF, all the modes, K-5 4-way button positions, WR, etc. Maybe not. Probably not at $1400.

I guess we'll all know in about 6 weeks. If I get it I'll do a video and some stills of my holding technique and post it for everyone's comments. Worst thing that happens to me is I sell it for $599 here. Won't be the first time, won't be the last.

I hope so many of us think about how they could use this camera instead of just dismissing it because it is different from what they have now.

That seems like a lot of work to me to make the rear screen work, but that is great if it works for you. With a viewfinder, I set the diopter and I'm in like flint. I've tried really hard to love live view because it offers some real advantages, but I don't seem to use much it without a tripod. (when I'd use the ground glass on LF) It may just be me. I've never even owned a P&S without a VF.

I'm responding mostly to his dismissive tone, not his assertion. K-mount is not useless. lack of VF does not make the camera useless.

Definitely not useless, but definitely less useful. A couple of optional finders like the Lumix LX5, and we'd be off to the races.

[monochrome]

That seems like a lot of work to me to make the rear screen work, but that is great if it works for you. With a viewfinder, I set the diopter and I'm in like flint. I've tried really hard to love live view because it offers some real advantages, but I don't seem to use much it without a tripod. (when I'd use the ground glass on LF) It may just be me. I've never even owned a P&S without a VF.

Definitely not useless, but definitely less useful. A couple of optional finders like the Lumix LX5, and we'd be off to the races.

I'll know in about 6 weeks. If it doesn't work I guess I'll have an expensive P&S to use at Christmas.

I think you'll get a version (or dSLR with internal updates) with 100% EVF and the other stuff added back in before the end of the year.