[fuent104]

1. Why not buy an actual ff camera as a 5d ($450), shave the mirror. You will have a ton more functionality than some gadget that costs 370 and honestly just doesn't compete in iq...
2. Student ff is not going to be profitable. Students by definion are poor. That is what makes k1000 so attractive. It costs 30 bucks. I can hardly imagine students forking 1000+(if even possible)on an item they are going to outgrow in 3 months. Besides 99 percent of general consumers wouldn't pay that much money for such a limited functionality camera. Lastly, the ergonomics of it are just terrible. Have you tried a k1000 w a lens 100mm+?

Ergonomics are subjective. I used to shoot my k1000 with a 300mm frequently. Never considered it a problem.

[oxidized]

A basic manual FF can easily be made to sell under a $1000. Students have to fork out thousand for tuition and supplies like books, and computers; a camera isn't going to make much difference in their budget.

Not sure where you are coming with these figures... Besides, photography students are not "enthusiasts" They are learning. Id venture to guess that many of them dont even know what a focal length is, aperture etc. They dont know about depth of field. They wouldnt even know about the advantages of FF over crop. For the purposes of learning they are much better off picking up a used K-5 for what $300 now? Or if they absolutely value FF go for something like canon 5d which is a former flagship camera also. Perfectly suitable for learning, just put it in M mode. Again, no need to spend $1000 for a camera which you are going to outgrow in 3 months.

And just because American education is incredibly overpriced, it doesnt mean students dont try to conserve on their expenses every way they can. I took a photography class in college. Granted, it was 2008 but i went for a K1000+K50mmF2.0. Got it for $50 off eBay. The film cost me around $250 to purchase and develop over the course of the semester. I knew the costs upfront before signing up for the class. The class didnt really cost me anything as any credits beyond 12 in a semester were free. However, even with these $300 upfront cost I felt a bit like I was throwing money at the wind. Again, Im speaking purely from personal experience, but when you are just starting out you have no idea if photography is even for you. Id imagine most people wouldnt jump for a fancy expensive camera when they are just getting their feet wet. If you have never been into biking and want to get into say road biking. I think its a pretty bad idea to go out there and buy a maxed out cannondale CAAD9 for $1400, when 2 weeks later you could realize you were never really that much into it.

A retro design, old fashioned, all manual camera is mostly appealing to the old timers who are dying to relive their youth experiences shooting film on such bodies. Nothing bad about that. Nostalgia can be a lovely thing! it's just that this market is rather small, hence very little profit to be made. Most modern day enthusiasts value function and ergonomics more. At the end of the day, you can always put a modern camera in M mode and manual focus with it, while its a bit hard to autofocus with MF only camera :-)

[Beaugrand]

I am currently taking a digital photography course, because I have a couple of digital cameras and I would like to know what all the buttons do. I'm already fairly well versed in film photography, and can often perform my own simple repairs on my film cameras; in fact, I very recently performed "surgery" on an older PK/A tele lens that had a mechanical interference on my newer digital body (after first determining that my "surgery" would not harm its functionality as a film camera lens).

My interest in a "digital film" cartridge is because I have a number of film cameras, and I would like to be able to use them; film has gotten expensive, processing more so, and it wouldn't be that hard technically or that expensive to make such a device: which would simply be a digital camera designed to reside inside a film camera body.

I've recently dissected a dead camera phone to get an idea how small the components are: VERY small, and yet this camera knocks out a decent 1.3mp image from that tiny sensor. Now, there is considerably more volume inside an old 35mm camera for today's electronics, and with my experiences in manufacturing, I am quite confident this is a very do-able project.

The only question remaining is whether there is enough demand for a digital "film" cartridge that would make all those old 35mm film cameras usable again?

I would certainly pay $100- that's about what a dozen rolls of premium film costs. I can't say if I'd be willing to pay $200 or more.

Someone needs to put together a survey of film camera owners who are interested in a "digital cartridge," and see what they would be willing to pay for one.

[Tesla]

Not sure where you are coming with these figures... Besides, photography students are not "enthusiasts" They are learning.... At the end of the day, you can always put a modern camera in M mode and manual focus with it, while its a bit hard to autofocus with MF only camera :-)

I still think a student digital MF FF camera is a good idea.. after they been out for awhile, you'll also be able to get them used for cheap also.. but you got to have new before you get used. I don't see how it isn't any good after 3 months.. you don't need AF in most cases. Until digital, I still used my K1000 after taking my classes, even though there were AF 35mm cameras available.

[Tony Belding]

I still think a student digital MF FF camera is a good idea.

I don't see the logic. Why FF for that purpose? If you want a relatively inexpensive (but not used) student camera, the K-500 is available right now. What's wrong with it?

The key thing to remember about FF is that the sensor is expensive. It takes up a lot of silicon wafer real estate. If you go to the expense of sourcing a sensor like that, then you want to make the most of it. That means putting it in your flagship camera, not in an entry-level camera.

[Tesla]

A fully manual camera forces the student to learn how to use a slr camera.. otherwise they just leave it on auto.. might as well get point and shoot. Lots of cheap FF glass out there also.

The key thing to remember about FF is that the sensor is expensive. It takes up a lot of silicon wafer real estate. If you go to the expense of sourcing a sensor like that, then you want to make the most of it. That means putting it in your flagship camera, not in an entry-level camera.

I have mentioned that this would be something for after a high end flagship FF model. The senors do cost more, but the more they produce the cheaper they get. And I know that they are now low enough in price that they can make an affordable student FF camera. Even if it was only 16MP FF.. that would do for a student camera.

[LFLee]

If Pentax got into FF, it would be very cool if they made a student version that is fully manual. Just like the K1000 or ZX-M, but digital and lcd display.. very basic. Perfect for students as there are tons of high quality manual k-mount lenses out there and very cheap. Could call it the K1000D.

Fully Manual (No AF, or SR)
Full Frame sensor and LCD display
High quality body, glass prism, metal mount
Split-image focus screen
Pop-up flash
Cost less than $1000.

It could look something like the Pentax ZX-M:

Most of the features from previous generation of camera now can be recycle easily in new body, as everything is electronics/software. Stripping of features to make it 'simpler' make no sense in this digital age.

[Tesla]

Most of the features from previous generation of camera now can be recycle easily in new body, as everything is electronics/software. Stripping of features to make it 'simpler' make no sense in this digital age.

Student camera! Oh well, after repeating myself over and over, I guess you guys don't get it. A simple MF FF camera forces the student to learn how to use a SLR. That was the idea of the K1000 in the film days. There were AF auto everything SLR film cameras, but still the K1000 was the preferred student camera because it forced the student to learn how to use a SLR.

[richard balonglong]

A basic manual FF can easily be made to sell under a $1000. Students have to fork out thousand for tuition and supplies like books, and computers; a camera isn't going to make much difference in their budget.

If ever there will be a K1000D, the target market won't be for students. But I get your point.. If Pentax-Ricoh enters the full frame market, a simple, basic, and low-budget (way cheaper than Sony a7) full frame digital camera would be successful (I think)..
So, who would be the potential target market for that kind of camera? One, for full manual photographers or maybe the purists and street photographers, two, hipsters if the camera's design is retroish or minimalistic (they are a good target too because they are like thousands and thousands of them all around the world), three, photographers on the budget but want a bigger sensor than aps-c...

[jogiba]

Student camera! Oh well, after repeating myself over and over, I guess you guys don't get it. A simple MF FF camera forces the student to learn how to use a SLR. That was the idea of the K1000 in the film days. There were AF auto everything SLR film cameras, but still the K1000 was the preferred student camera because it forced the student to learn how to use a SLR.

Student camera ? Wow, someone would have to be totally clueless if they need to take training on how to use a digital camera and zero chance of making a career out of it.

[Tesla]

Student camera ? Wow, someone would have to be totally clueless if they need to take training on how to use a digital camera and zero chance of making a career out of it.

What? There are photography classes.. and yes if you never used a slr before you would be clueless, but again you don't get the point like many others here.

[fretlessdavis]

If they did go this route, I think it would be a better to not go FF. If they could get a 'student FF' under $1000, what about a student APS-C?

Use the K-5 sensor, no video, no live view, AF, or anything. De-cripple the mount on it. Make controls like a Super Program-- ISO dial on the left (EV Comp as well) Shutter speed dial with A position on the right, shutter button drilled for a regular cable release, and while we're at it, since it's a student camera, do away with the back LCD, and just to a top one like the ZX-5 (for tripod work).

With all that stripped out, using an existing sensor and processor, they could probably get one to market for $300 or less.

EDIT: DEFINTIELY no LCD on the back-- teach students how to meter properly, and bracket if unsure.

Also, responding to above: There are still photography classes. People still do things for themself, too, and need to learn about the Aperture, ISO, exposure relationship, DOF, etc.

If they could get *student* APS-C bodies cheap enough, it may even keep prices of Photo classes down... no film and chemical costs to spend $$$ on, but the advantage of more modern sensors and such vs using old tech DSLRs.

[jogiba]

What? There are photography classes.. and yes if you never used a slr before you would be clueless, but again you don't get the point like many others here.

What ? There is youtube.

You Tube

You Tube

[fretlessdavis]

What ? There is youtube.
Photography Tutorial - FIRST Lesson! What is Aperture ? DSLR Photography Lesson for Beginners - YouTube

By that logic we should get rid all traditional schools, since anyone can post a video online... why do we need teachers? Can't you just go on YouTube and learn how to write an essay instead of having to go to school?

You can go online and get videos on playing musical instruments, yet why do so many real musicians (classical, jazz, not overly simple rock and hip-hop BS-- that's not really music) seek out years of education with private instructors, or spend thousands of dollars going to Juliard?

Just like any art, the photo basics are easy to learn, but mastery takes a lifetime.

[jogiba]

By that logic we should get rid all traditional schools, since anyone can post a video online... why do we need teachers? Can't you just go on YouTube and learn how to write an essay instead of having to go to school?

You can go online and get videos on playing musical instruments, yet why do so many real musicians (classical, jazz, not overly simple rock and hip-hop BS-- that's not really music) seek out years of education with private instructors, or spend thousands of dollars going to Juliard?

Just like any art, the photo basics are easy to learn, but mastery takes a lifetime.

"Shumilova told us her passion for photography manifested in early 2012 when she got her first camera. "
Russian Mother Takes Magical Pictures of Her Two Kids With Animals On Her Farm | Bored Panda