Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-26-2015, 09:12 AM   #151
Senior Member
Mothballs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 259
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
I wonder if they had stopped the k-1000 much earlier and moved on if they would be a major player still instead of an also ran. Keeping the k-1000 was stagnation not a crowning achievement. I do not think of the k-1000 as a good thing, rather it was the camera that destroyed Pentax because they just road it down in flames.

History means nothing. This is not Pentax anymore, it is Ricoh. And it is not 1976. Comparisons of what Pentax did 20 or 30 years ago are not really going to indicate anything about what Ricoh is going to do next year.
History is how you build a brand. :/

As well, the K-1000 was and is one of those cameras that any photographer I've talked to knows about and has some respect for. I highly doubt that it's continued existence hurt pentax. That would be like saying Porsche is crippled by continuing the 911. I strongly disagree with you.

06-26-2015, 09:36 AM   #152
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,772
QuoteOriginally posted by Mothballs Quote
As well, the K-1000 was and is one of those cameras that any photographer I've talked to knows about and has some respect for. I highly doubt that it's continued existence hurt pentax. That would be like saying Porsche is crippled by continuing the 911. I strongly disagree with you.
It's Ok to disagree. But hanging on to the k-1000 and not going with an auto-focus camera at that point in time was just living with your head in the sand. They stuck with it and were not inclined to innovate and move forward so Canon and Nikon ate their lunch. (And breakfast and dinner and dessert). And eventually led to collapse, the company being bought up and dismembered.

So I strongly disagree with you. That would be like Porsche still making the 1965 model 911 without any changes.

---------- Post added 06-26-15 at 09:37 AM ----------

And maybe you should talk to some photographers that are not ready for social security
06-26-2015, 10:03 AM   #153
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,345
QuoteOriginally posted by Mothballs Quote
History is how you build a brand. :/

As well, the K-1000 was and is one of those cameras that any photographer I've talked to knows about and has some respect for. I highly doubt that it's continued existence hurt pentax. That would be like saying Porsche is crippled by continuing the 911. I strongly disagree with you.
Porsche 911... interesting that you're mentioning this car.
Is it cheap? Did Porsche remove features like power steering, electric windows or air conditioning to make it cheaper? Did they keep it the same?
If not - the Pentax "K1000" should be very different, and much more complex than its film counterpart. Something like a D810, wait, even that won't be Porsche enough
06-26-2015, 11:23 AM   #154
Senior Member
Mothballs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 259
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
And maybe you should talk to some photographers that are not ready for social security
Man, if those guys are ready for that, then I'm old.

The K-1000 "died" in 97. 30-40 year olds learned on it. Hell, I learned on... An MTL-50 (still love that shutter sound,) actually, but I'm 25. But my friend, who's a year younger, uses a K-1000 all the time.

As for the Porsche analogy, perhaps I should have said Mustang. Affordable, basic, and practically eternal. Unfortunately, unlike the K-1000, all the mustang is good for is dad's who desperately comb their hair over the bald patch and try to relive their Metallica youth.

06-26-2015, 11:37 AM   #155
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
It's Ok to disagree. But hanging on to the k-1000 and not going with an auto-focus camera at that point in time was just living with your head in the sand. They stuck with it and were not inclined to innovate and move forward so Canon and Nikon ate their lunch. (And breakfast and dinner and dessert). And eventually led to collapse, the company being bought up and dismembered.
It's weird that a company that wasn't willing to go with an auto-focus camera introduced the first auto-focus system.

The Canon EOS system debuted in 1987, the same year as the Pentax SF series.
06-26-2015, 11:51 AM   #156
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,772
QuoteOriginally posted by fuent104 Quote
It's weird that a company that wasn't willing to go with an auto-focus camera introduced the first auto-focus system.
Yep, would love to know what happened. They were there first and walked away. Auto-focus? Auto-focus what? We don't need no stinking auto-focus!

Oh well, past history and Ricoh looks to be making a serious bid to move forward with a new attitude. Not everyone may like that but at least they are not sitting around with their heads in the sand. They know how hard it will be to challenge the big boys and they have no (or very little) accomplishments to rest on. They know they are behind and they are not going to ride anything down in flames while quietly ignoring the outside world.

QuoteOriginally posted by Mothballs Quote
As for the Porsche analogy, perhaps I should have said Mustang. Affordable, basic, and practically eternal.
The concept is still good, a relatively simple inexpensive camera. Unfortunately, that is not going to be a top of the line FF in this market. It will be the k-S2 or the k-50. Simple in today's market means more electronics and auto-stuff not less. People today want simple and easy, like a cell phone. They don't want to have to calculate exposure or worry about WB or anything else.

Back when the k-1000 was around new many, many people got into photography. Today very, very few people get into photography. Lots of people are into taking pictures, but that is not the same as photography. A simple camera for photographers is vastly different than a simple camera for picture takers. And if you are really into photography why would you buy a simple camera that lacks features?
06-26-2015, 12:24 PM   #157
Senior Member
Mothballs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 259
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
Yep, would love to know what happened. They were there first and walked away. Auto-focus? Auto-focus what? We don't need no stinking auto-focus!

Oh well, past history and Ricoh looks to be making a serious bid to move forward with a new attitude. Not everyone may like that but at least they are not sitting around with their heads in the sand. They know how hard it will be to challenge the big boys and they have no (or very little) accomplishments to rest on. They know they are behind and they are not going to ride anything down in flames while quietly ignoring the outside world.


The concept is still good, a relatively simple inexpensive camera. Unfortunately, that is not going to be a top of the line FF in this market. It will be the k-S2 or the k-50. Simple in today's market means more electronics and auto-stuff not less. People today want simple and easy, like a cell phone. They don't want to have to calculate exposure or worry about WB or anything else.

Back when the k-1000 was around new many, many people got into photography. Today very, very few people get into photography. Lots of people are into taking pictures, but that is not the same as photography. A simple camera for photographers is vastly different than a simple camera for picture takers. And if you are really into photography why would you buy a simple camera that lacks features?
Because my MTL-50 is still nicer to work with than the K-50 most of the time? The major reason I don't use it is the cost of film and development. That's it.

There's features that are helpful, and then there's feature loading. It's like buying a TV. All I want is an HD TV. Not a smart TV with a billion features and Option menus, Bluetooth and WiFi. Just a TV. I can run Netflix on the PS3 (With better speed.)

Or when you get a new laptop with a boatload of bloatware. A bunch of useless junk Just crammed in there.

I'm not saying that the the features are like this, by the way. But a lot of the features ARE situational and not needed to get a good picture. Sometimes, less is more.
06-26-2015, 02:03 PM   #158
Veteran Member
neostyles's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 445
This is a terrible idea. Sorry but shying away from competition never led to great things I agree with the above comments. These kinds of things like built in wi fi are essential these days. Sony was the first company to realize this and they are drawing heads from every corner of the photography world. Pentax needs these these things if they are to affect a change in how people view them.

06-26-2015, 02:05 PM   #159
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,467
Apart from using the aperture/shutter control wheels what else do you need to use that make a Pentax DSLR 'complicated'?
06-26-2015, 02:19 PM   #160
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,345
QuoteOriginally posted by Mothballs Quote
As for the Porsche analogy, perhaps I should have said Mustang. Affordable, basic, and practically eternal.
For straight roads only
That's not a brand I'd want Pentax associated with. I'd rather have Porsche (with the implied performance, features and - unfortunately - price). Or perhaps a Lotus, called by some the best handling cars ever.

---------- Post added 27-06-15 at 12:19 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by mohb Quote
Apart from using the aperture/shutter control wheels what else do you need to use that make a Pentax DSLR 'complicated'?
Everything that allows it to take a picture
06-26-2015, 02:25 PM   #161
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by zmohie Quote
posted this at dpr and i thought it may discuss her
>>>>
Instead of the unbenefit attempt of challenging nikon and cannon in the full frame sector. I suggest releasing a cheap full frame with a price that doesn't exceed 1000$ without the following common features :
1- No video.
2- No flash.
3- No built-in GPS.
4- No WiFi
5- No touch screen
6- No flipped screen
7- No PS.

Just put 24mp sensor inside a body that has Pentax standard and this includes OV.
I think a camera with that price would be the most suitable to compete with the market and will attract many people from other brands. It would also make Pentax sell more lenses.
Moreover, releasing this camera soon will give Pentax the time to release a camera full of new technology. I think Pentax has to go this way before Sony. It would also save time and money for Pentax. Your thoughts ..? Or am I dreaming ..?
Perhaps they should just release their empty prototype?
06-26-2015, 03:37 PM   #162
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,851
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
Back when the k-1000 was around new many, many people got into photography.
Funnily enough, I got into SLR photography with a K-mount Ricoh XR2s back in the day, with more advanced features than a K-1000 (aperture priority AE, a motor-drive option, even a viewfinder eye-piece blind ). When I got my XR2s, I was upgrading from a Bierette vsn 35mm, and before that some 126 Kodaks.

The advanced features and fancy doo-dads of the XR2s, like aperture priority AE, helped sell me on the camera. I was tired of the sunny-16 rule.

So lets not mythologize the K-1000. Even in days of yore, consumers appreciated 'feature packed' cameras.
06-26-2015, 04:36 PM   #163
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,874
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Funnily enough, I got into SLR photography with a K-mount Ricoh XR2s back in the day, with more advanced features than a K-1000 (aperture priority AE, a motor-drive option, even a viewfinder eye-piece blind ). When I got my XR2s, I was upgrading from a Bierette vsn 35mm, and before that some 126 Kodaks.

The advanced features and fancy doo-dads of the XR2s, like aperture priority AE, helped sell me on the camera. I was tired of the sunny-16 rule.

So lets not mythologize the K-1000. Even in days of yore, consumers appreciated 'feature packed' cameras.
The only reason the K1000 existed as long as it did was because it was the last camera with nothing but a simple light meter in it. Combined with a price tag less than $150 it became the almost defacto student camera.

When people ask what I'm using, and I tell the Pentax I often get the, "Oh I had one of those years ago." right before the "They still make cameras?"

As the years go on we remember them being better than they were...
06-26-2015, 04:41 PM   #164
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,455
QuoteOriginally posted by beachgardener Quote
digital lx perhaps
At the time an LX was hardly an uncomplicated, inexpensive camera. Even today my 28-year-old LX can do things few if any digital cameras can do (OTF long-exposure metering and interchangeable viewfinders, for instance).

The equivalent camera today would be a true professional camera, something along the lines of a D810 or one of the sports-optimized Canons.

Come to consider it - a digital LX is a fine analogy for what Pentax really SHOULD do.
06-26-2015, 06:26 PM - 1 Like   #165
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,772
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Come to consider it - a digital LX is a fine analogy for what Pentax really SHOULD do.
And I called 'LX D' for the FF name a long time ago
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Combined with a price tag less than $150 it became the almost defacto student camera.
Yep, and it was used as a student camera for two reasons: it was cheap and almost indestructible. And is fondly remembered by many. But it was not used because of a lack of features, it was used because students could not break it and it was cheap. And it could be cheap only beacuse of a lack of features. Mythologizing it is fine, it was a wonderful first photographic experience for many but it was still just a cheap, solid camera that was made in such a huge quantity that parts and service were easily available and schools could buy them in job lots.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, aps-c, battery, camera, cameras, capacity, customers, ff, focus, forum, frame, full-frame, gps, k200d, leica, market, mind, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, pool, price, ricoh, sales, screen, slot, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Now that FF is here and what do we do with the cropped DA lenses? pento57mm Pentax Full Frame 63 04-11-2015 07:05 PM
What Should Pentax Do? Cynog Ap Brychan Pentax News and Rumors 1095 04-01-2015 05:10 AM
This is what Pentax should do Rekusu Pentax Medium Format 19 01-12-2015 01:10 AM
Sony A7ii -- what Pentax FF should look like? MJSfoto1956 Pentax DSLR Discussion 59 11-25-2014 03:09 PM
Problem with (not cheap) eBay lens, what should I do? StevePrime Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 12-08-2011 03:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:23 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top