[Fenwoodian]

.
In the last few months, I've purchased one K-1 for under $1.000 ; and another K-1 for under $900. Today on Ebay I counted 4 K-1 cameras with buy-it-now prices (including shipping) of less than $1,000 !

I do most of my own lens repairs. However, when I've contacted Zeiss USA (or other premium lens repair centers) in the past, I've found that many of their repair estimates were over $500. I can only imagine that many camera repairs can also go over $500.

I keep cameras that I like a long time, and the K-1 just may be my all time favorite camera. My oldest K-1 has tens of thousands of shutter actuations on it and it's beat up and mutilated - I doubt I'd get $700 for it if I tried to sell it.

So, for those of us who are shooting older/discontinued cameras like the K-1, does it make sense to purchase a second backup K-1 to replace our main K-1 should it have a major failure? Is it cheaper to just buy a second body then to send a broken older body that's been discontinued in for repair?

This is even more true for older/discontinued Pentax APS-C cameras. I just sold a like new K5iis (3,000 shutter clicks) with grip and lots of extras for just $300. Here on Pentax Forums, a friend had a mint K5iis (my favorite Pentax APS-C body) with 2,000 clicks on it - it was for sale for months before he finally sold it for barely over $200. For that money, about the only thing a camera repair a shop would do would be to replace a broken battery compartment door - any more serious repairs would clearly cost more than the camera is worth.

I prefer to shoot older lenses and discontinued cameras because they are: 1) "good enough" for my photography needs and 2) I don't have to worry about them being damaged in the field (or stolen). The savings on my not buying camera theft insurance I've used to purchase inexpensive older/discontined gear for backup and redundancy.

Tonight I'm going out shooting Christmas lights with my old beat up K-1 and a couple of sub-$200, old, fast, prime, bokeh lenses. If I break something (or something is stolen) I won't loose any sleep knowing I've got plenty of cheap backup gear at home that can easily replace it.

So, I'd like to ask - "Are older/discontinued Pentax bodies (e.g. K-1, K-3, K5) now disposable"? If you significantly damage them is it better to just buy another body (and either: discard, part-out, or sell "as is" the broken body?), or is it better to repair the broken body?

.

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 12-09-2019 at 03:21 PM.

[Sir Nameless]

Back when I was shopping for my first DSLR body, I really wanted a used K5IIs. The only thing that held me back was the lack of focus peaking in live view, which I wanted for focus stacking. At the time the K3II wasn't out yet, and the K3's (used) were more than I wanted to spend for a first camera (not knowing how things would go). K50 was ~$350 new and close to being discontinued, so I went with it (not knowing anything about the aperture block failure issue).

I hate the thought of this still-very-capable gear being thought of as disposable (so that it builds up like flotsam in closets and/or landfills), but repair prices being what they are, and DIY skills/tools lacking, it starts to feel that way.

[RGlasel]

If you significantly damage them is it better to just buy another body, or is it better to repair the broken body?

You missed a third option, use this as an excuse to upgrade your camera.

[luftfluss]

Nearly 4 years ago on this forum I bought a K-5 II (not IIs) in excellent condition, plus a Peak Design strap, a small Metz flash and L bracket for $300. I sold off the flash and L bracket which brought my total down to under $250, maybe $200 - I don't quite remember. So yeah, it is often better to simply get an older model replaced, rather than repaired. But it's been that way for many electronic devices for years.

WRT the K-1, even though our inclination may be to compare it solely with other full-frame models, in reality it should be compared with all ILC's because all of them are able to create the same type of imagery - landscapes, portraits, wildlife, etc. So purely in terms of maximum image quality, the K-1 is well above average compared with all ILC's.

Like you*, I tend to avoid gear that is "expensive" in the sense of "replaceable value". I've never paid over $500 for any single photographic item, in part because I've managed to keep my needs/desires fairly modest, and also because I've lucked into some excellent deals.**


* We may have differing opinions of "expensive"

** The downside of acquiring excellent gear via excellent deals is if something catastrophic happened to said gear, it could easily cost twice as much (or more) to replace it with the same or comparable item. And it can be difficult to "go backwards" and make do with lesser gear.

[photoptimist]

"Disposable" seems like too strong a word. You would not throw away an old K-5 just because you have no more use for it. Others would gladly buy these older cameras.

"Not worth repairing" is the right term.

That's true of a great many products these days (not just cameras) that are now much more expensive to repair than to replace. The cost of high-skill labor required for troubleshooting something like a K-1 costs more than the cost of lower-skill labor needed to mass produce the device. It kind of makes sense. The four tasks of taking something apart, finding the problem, getting the right parts, and putting it back together again is a lot more work than the one task of just putting it together.

So.... enjoy all these awesome old cameras and the fact that it's so easy to find used copies of them for a low price.

[uday029]

I think this is true of many (electronic) products now a days. With newer models being released ever so often, things tend to become obsolete soon. This is bad for early adopters since the pay the most to get new products but can't get a good resale value. However, people who are ok not having the latest and greatest can find bargain deals.

[Kath]

It’s nice to know that we don’t have to mortgage our houses to buy a new camera, should one fall into the river. But having labor be so expensive while manufacturing is cheap will likely drown us all in plastic and the junk of disposed goods. Ugh, such downsides.

[stevebrot]

Hmmmmm...

From a consumer electronics perspective, all digital cameras are disposable.* Otherwise why are so many users on this site upset when the pace of new product releases lags?

From a working pro perspective, depreciation for tax purposes may influence gear rotation in ways similar to computers and copy machines. IIRC, in the U.S. that means a five year schedule.

From a practical perspective, my K-3 is five years old and the labels on the OK, menu, and info buttons are wearing off. That is no big deal, I guess. If I should have problems with any of the controls (so many buttons and dials to fail), I would definitely get a quote to fix. If a new or used replacement were available at a competitive price, then I would list to sell, "as is" and replace.


Steve

* Disposable in the sense that either repair is not a reasonable option or that perceived obsolescence is a constant or that there is good business sense to replacement on schedule.

[kiwi_jono]

It’s nice to know that we don’t have to mortgage our houses to buy a new camera, should one fall into the river. But having labor be so expensive while manufacturing is cheap will likely drown us all in plastic and the junk of disposed goods. Ugh, such downsides.

That is certainly a major modern problem unfortunately. Mostly its hidden from us, as none of us want a landfill nearby, so they are often in more remote spots out of the way (like in deep valleys). But I know, even in NZ where your recycling is collected from your gate, there are still whole valleys being filled with waste (the valleys over time just disappear!). Some countries land is reclaimed from the sea this way but that presents other issues / challenges with toxic leakage. At current population growth rates, this is not sustainable so something will have to change in the future. Anyway mini rant over!

I like to think I use mostly second hand stuff for my photographic gear because it helps maximise its use it but in reality its mostly because that is what my budget allows.
That said I have purchased 2 things new in recent times, a K-1 and a DFA 28-105, as in the end I just had to have them and could not wait another year for them to appear on the second hand market. Well worth it too ;-)

[stevebrot]

With newer models being released ever so often, things tend to become obsolete soon.

Obsolete is such an interesting concept. Except for things like manufacturing and warfare, the cost of obsolescence is often minimal as long as something is repairable and its fitness to task was originally very good to excellent. Around the corner from me in another room is a shelf filled with cameras, all of which were made before 1975 and a few of which were made at or near the date I was born. All function as well as the day they were made and all but one* are capable of producing photographs worthy of hanging. In another room there is a shelf with several camera that date to the early 1980s, each one of which has features missing on their older cousins and again, each functions as well as on the day it was made. Which group is more obsolete?


Steve

* That one would be my Yashica 44. To be honest, I have not given it a very good trial, partially for lack of a source of quality 127 film.

[house]

My k-5 didn't see that many clicks before retiring. I got the k-3II because of the GPS. Its such a nice piece if kit but just sits in a shelf. My kids use the k100d as they are to young (oldest is 7) to benefit from the k-5. The resale value of the k5 means its not worth selling.

I don't like it, wasting human effort and partially toxic materials like that. Should end.

[VSTAR]

I would worry if the k-1 had many know issues and therefore may become not worth fixing. I have not seen this reported on the forums so far. Every electronic item has a cost/benefit in repairing versus replacing. At this point I see nothing to be concerned about.

[tvdtvdtvd]

The quick answer is yes, Pentax cameras are built to be disposable after their expected lifespan. But this is no different than most any other
modern electronic device. Modern cameras, (and computers, stereo equip, washing machines, etc), can often be repaired if you have the will
to do so. But as you have discovered, the cost of repairing modern electronic devices is often so close to the cost of purchasing a new item
that in many cases it makes sense to purchase new rather than repair. It's called 'built in obsolescence'

[zapp]

Life experience tells me that if you buy two of the same kind, both never brake. Buy only one and it will fail.
K1ii will be with me as a second boy for quite some time.

[BigMackCam]

Like @photoptimist I'd say there comes a point where modern cameras aren't worth repairing, rather than them being "disposable". I mean, most of them can be repaired if the owner is prepared to pay up. But many times, it will be cheaper to buy a used replacement than to have a service facility repair the defective camera.

As others have said, this is true with many complex products - especially where certain components are highly specialised or custom designed for the unit's function - as is the case with digital cameras...