[pathdoc]

Seems like that would be pretty awkward, though. It would be the only camera with a non-crippled K-mount.

I thought they couldn't get the electronics for the needle actuator anymore, too.

The needle actuator is 1970's technology (at the latest); duplicating it would be easy.

As far as the awkwardness is concerned, I don't think this would matter much; it would still be a manual-exposure-only film camera, and thus would not compete with or seriously embarrass any of the DSLRs in functionality.

---------- Post added 25-10-17 at 10:42 ----------

IIRC, the last run of K1000's were already metal-look plastic topped.

They were; the point I was trying to make is that today's plastics are better.

[Erictator]

The needle actuator is 1970's technology (at the latest); duplicating it would be easy.

As far as the awkwardness is concerned, I don't think this would matter much; it would still be a manual-exposure-only film camera, and thus would not compete with or seriously embarrass any of the DSLRs in functionality.

---------- Post added 25-10-17 at 10:42 ----------



They were; the point I was trying to make is that today's plastics are better.

Understood, no worries. I still have the last manual focus version film camera they made (at least I "think" it was the last?), my Pentax ZX M, and it is still working great and is a joy to use.
I really think it an underrated little gem myself. Light, compact, and everything works as you would expect. Put good film in it and good glass in front of it, and nothing is really much better.

Pentax MZ-M/ZX-M - Pentax Manual Focus Film SLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications

While some reviewers pan it hard for reliability, I can't say I've had any issues with mine. As you say, with modern electronics, it would probably be a better unit if made in today's factories.

The ZX-M would probably be the easiest to bring to market, but if I had my choice for a retro classic, I'd want the Pentax LX... trouble is, with the modular viewfinder and all the clock-work mechanical innards, etc, I think it would be far too expensive to make for reasonable money (said - Non Leica prices)

Eric

[timw4mail]

Understood, no worries. I still have the last manual focus version film camera they made (at least I "think" it was the last?), my Pentax ZX M, and it is still working great and is a joy to use.
I really think it an underrated little gem myself. Light, compact, and everything works as you would expect. Put good film in it and good glass in front of it, and nothing is really much better.

Pentax MZ-M/ZX-M - Pentax Manual Focus Film SLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications

While some reviewers pan it hard for reliability, I can't say I've had any issues with mine. As you say, with modern electronics, it would probably be a better unit if made in today's factories.

The ZX-M would probably be the easiest to bring to market, but if I had my choice for a retro classic, I'd want the Pentax LX... trouble is, with the modular viewfinder and all the clock-work mechanical innards, etc, I think it would be far too expensive to make for reasonable money (said - Non Leica prices)

Eric

That's the camera that made me think Pentax was crap.

They were a bad choice for student cameras for a photography class -- not that there was a good alternative in production at the time. (So I got a Minolta SRT-101 to use for the class)

Pentax's reputation for reliability comes from their clockwork/metal cameras.

All that to say...if Pentax were to bring back a film camera, the last one I'd like to see is the ZX-M.

[blende8]

The MZ-S camera was good.

[Erictator]

That's the camera that made me think Pentax was crap.

They were a bad choice for student cameras for a photography class -- not that there was a good alternative in production at the time. (So I got a Minolta SRT-101 to use for the class)

Pentax's reputation for reliability comes from their clockwork/metal cameras.

All that to say...if Pentax were to bring back a film camera, the last one I'd like to see is the ZX-M.

That's too bad, sorry you had such a bad experience. I guess random quality control does that. Mine got used hard, and in the tropical heat, still going today. I used the optional underside mount battery grip with mine. Maybe the improved power source helped? Who knows.

Funny you should mention the SRT101, that was my very first personal SLR, and was a gift from a friend with a repair business. It was one that he repaired and customer never picked up. Good little tank of a camera, though the meter wasn't very accurate for slide film, and I prefer the K1000 viewfinder, which seemed brighter and easier to focus with better metering.
Eric

[timw4mail]

That's too bad, sorry you had such a bad experience. I guess random quality control does that. Mine got used hard, and in the tropical heat, still going today. I used the optional underside mount battery grip with mine. Maybe the improved power source helped? Who knows.

Funny you should mention the SRT101, that was my very first personal SLR, and was a gift from a friend with a repair business. It was one that he repaired and customer never picked up. Good little tank of a camera, though the meter wasn't very accurate for slide film, and I prefer the K1000 viewfinder, which seemed brighter and easier to focus with better metering.
Eric

I think it had more to due with the environment of high school students...

And I've never heard of people saying the SRT meter was inaccurate. Perhaps overhyped, with the two CdS light meters supposedly being able to compensate for backlit lighting conditions...

[monochrome]

Why on earth would someone pay more than $500 for a new plain old film camera when an essentially perfect KM with CLA to factory spec can be had for 1/4 of that?

[i83N]

Why on earth would someone pay more than $500 for a new plain old film camera when an essentially perfect KM with CLA to factory spec can be had for 1/4 of that?

Because old cost 600$

[timw4mail]

Why on earth would someone pay more than $500 for a new plain old film camera when an essentially perfect KM with CLA to factory spec can be had for 1/4 of that?

Because they have money, and new items are generally easier to acquire.

[pentaxus]

If someone wanted to make a new K1000 they would have to get the tooling etc. from the Ming Camera Company in China if it still exists since Ming bought it from Pentax. Ming's camera had an LED meter because the people who made the meter needles stopped making them and an LED meter was affordable. The Ming camera I have has a metal top cover BTW.

[Lord Lucan]

The needle actuator [of the K1000] is 1970's technology (at the latest); duplicating it would be easy

No it would not be easy. Old tech is hard it is to reproduce today at a reasonable price. While old tech is understood in theory, you would for example need to go a long way and pay a high price to get a needle meter movement of sufficient accuracy made (I think that is what was meant by "actuator").

Anyway, why the K1000? With selfies in high fashion, a camera with no self-timer would be a bad idea. The KM, which was a K1000 with a self-timer, would be better - call it a K1000 anyway if that floats your boat. Better still would be the MX, needle meter replaced by LEDs which could be sourced today without problem, and a far better camera anyway.

[monochrome]

Except an MX is uncomfortably small and I prefer match needle meter indicators over LED’s, which tend to wash out in bright light.

.

No it would not be easy. Old tech is hard it is to reproduce today at a reasonable price. While old tech is understood in theory, you would for example need to go a long way and pay a high price to get a needle meter movement of sufficient accuracy made (I think that is what was meant by "actuator").

Anyway, why the K1000? With selfies in high fashion, a camera with no self-timer would be a bad idea. The KM, which was a K1000 with a self-timer, would be better - call it a K1000 anyway if that floats your boat. Better still would be the MX, needle meter replaced by LEDs which could be sourced today without problem, and a far better camera anyway.

[pathdoc]

Except an MX is uncomfortably small and I prefer match needle meter indicators over LED’s, which tend to wash out in bright light.

I find the MX's small size a joy, but I understand that some people most definitely do not or I would have recommended it in a heartbeat. As for the LED washout, yes, that's also a problem and I sometimes wish a +/- needle MX had existed. The cheekier and more cynical among us might argue that if it's bright enough to wash out your LEDs, it's probably bright enough to use Sunny Sixteen.

If you really want to give the hipsters their retro fix, bypass the meter entirely and bring back the S1a or SV. You could probably even charge more for it and plenty of fools would gladly part with their money.

[monochrome]

The truth is I don’t think anyone could build a mechanical camera as robust as an MX or KX/KM/K1000 today. They require too many parts and too much hand assembly - people are too expensive to justify.

[Jeff Lopez]

Hipsters love the SV, Pathdoc..

Pentax SV – Camera Review – Casual Photophile
Wondering if its a review or a love poem, 😃