[pepitajack]

Hi all

How rare is the Pentax KX with the split screen focusing screen?
Is the build quality of the KX better than the K1000/KM? Or the KX is the K1000/KM with more features?

[Lord Lucan]

Despite the fact that they have similar outlines, to describe the KX as a "K1000 with more features" is like saying a BMW is a VW Beetle with more features. But the build quality of all of the K Series was good, so they are all still sought after.

The K1000 was a KM with some features removed, and both were basically previous generation Spotmatics (a late 1960s design, with slow CdS metering and cloth shutters) with a K bayonet mount instead of a screw mount.

The KX and the K2 were of the next technical generation with silicon photocell metering, although the KX still had a cloth shutter I believe. The KX and the DMD variant of the K2 had full information viewfinders.

It was ironic that the production of the K1000, the bottom of the range of the K Series, out-lasted them all, long after the others of the K Series were replaced by the M Series, the A Series, and even later .

[gofour3]

How rare is the Pentax KX with the split screen focusing screen?

They are definitely harder to find.

I as well as many other forum members have a KX with a split screen. Compared to the regular screen, it's probably a 1 in 10 ratio.

Phil.

[monochrome]

Hi all

How rare is the Pentax KX with the split screen focusing screen?
Is the build quality of the KX better than the K1000/KM? Or is the KX a KM/K1000 with more features?

The KX (and K2) was more its own camera then a souped up KM. It’s build quality is superior to all K1000’s not made in Japan. The KM is essentially a Spotmatic-F with a bayonet mount and has the same build quality as a KX. Contrary to popular thought, IMO KX is the best all-mechanical film body made by Pentax (MX owners will disagree here).

The split-screen on KX was a factory installed, special order item not commonly available. I believe @gofour3 recently wrote that about 10% of KX bodies had the split screen.

Read the reviews of the KX and KM HERE

[stevebrot]

The KX (and K2) was more its own camera then a souped up KM. It’s build quality is superior to all K1000’s not made in Japan. The KM is essentially a Spotmatic-F with a bayonet mount and has the same build quality as a KX.

This ^ ^ ^

The rub is that the build quality of K1000s changed over time with later versions being progressively less faithful to the KM from they were all derived. If one likes the idea of a K1000, a KM would be a better bet all round and less expensive too.


Steve

(...currently owns Spotmatic F and KX, would consider a KM except for already having a SP F, has no interest in getting a K1000...)

[Astro-Baby]

I have a KX and a K1000.....in terms of build quality and feel there is little between them BUT the KX has better metering with silicon photocells rather than older CdS cells. The KX has a full information viewfinder with match needle metering versus the K1000s single meter needle. I cant swear to it but the KX viewfinder seems cleaner and sharper than the K1000 in my possession.

The KX also has depth of field preview and mirror lock up. Some people think its the best manual body Pentax ever made. MX users will disagree

The KX I have is near mint, the K1000 is an early MIJ version and also near mint and in terms of feel, wind on, shutter release action, overall operation, fit and finish theres not much to choose between them but if I could keep only one it would be the KX, its just more refined and its easier to live with and its match needle meter is really nice.

It seems weird to me that people will pay more for a K1000 which is potentially a pig in a poke deal than they will for a KX which is a thoroughbred but then people pay more for Canon AE1s than they will for FTbs and thats the same story, precison made sweetheart versus plastic and electronic horror. Nowt queerer than folk.

I would think of the K1000 as a K series with all the expensive stuff stripped out rather like a base model BMW compared to an M series.

I have read that Pentax used the K series to experiment with different technologies to decide on where to go next in terms of development.

[TwoUptons]

Functionally, I think it's not inappropriate to consider a KX a K1000 with more features...

I think the BMW/VW analogy is flawed... that would be like saying a Minolta XG1 is like a K1000 with more features...
A better analogy would be that a Porsche 356 is like a VW Beetle with more features

But the feature differences are really nice.
The full information viewfinder is cool, and having depth of field preview that doesn't involve a partial lens dismount is handy...
Self timer? It's neat, but I hardly use it.

I do wish my KX had the split screen, but maybe that's why I think the MX is better

-Eric

[Lord Lucan]

The KX (and K2) was more its own camera then a souped up KM.

Indeed. The KX could hardly be a souped up K1000 because the K1000 was launched a year later. The K1000 was in fact a cut-down KM. It saddens me to hear the K1000 being used as a benchmark for every other Pentax camera ever made. Even today, 44 years after the K1000 was launched, there are photographers who regard Pentax as a beginner's brand because of what I called in another thread "the shadow of the K1000". There are more sad stories along that line in this concurrent thread: Have you experienced pressure to switch systems? - PentaxForums.com

I have read that Pentax used the K series to experiment with different technologies to decide on where to go next in terms of development.

That is interesting and makes sense. The original three K Series (K2, KX, KM) had a very short life, The K2 (an auto-manual) evolved into the pro grade K2-DMD, which was then superceded by the functionally similar LX. The KX as a type (a pro-grade manual only) was replaced by the MX, functionally similar but smaller, and the KM was replaced by the K1000 aimed at the bottom of the market where fashion did not matter. I think that what emerged is that most of the market wanted auto and manual in the same camera, and they wanted smaller sizes. I think the optimum reached in that era was the professional LX and the amateur ME Super.

It was also established that there was a market for a budget camera that had little or no regard for either fashion or technical advances - the market for beginners who knew little about cameras but did recognise a reputable brand name, and also for more experienced users on a budget or wanted a basic second camera. That was the K1000, and its equivalent in other brands, like the Minolta SRT-101.

[Papa_Joe]

That is interesting and makes sense. The original three K Series (K2, KX, KM) had a very short life, The K2 (an auto-manual) evolved into the pro grade K2-DMD, which was then superceded by the functionally similar LX.

I am sorry, but I have to disagree. The LX might be called the follow up of the K2 DMD, as it replaced it as the top camera of the Pentax line-up. But the K2 DMD was not functionally similiar to the LX, which was not one, but two generations further in development. I would like to point out TTL and program flash, hybrid mechanical/electrical shutter, interchangeable viewfinder, light metering during exposure, to mention the most obvious. Features K2 user could only dream of.

[Lord Lucan]

I am sorry, but I have to disagree. The LX might be called the follow up of the K2 DMD, as it replaced it as the top camera of the Pentax line-up. But the K2 DMD was not functionally similiar to the LX

Yes the LX was an advance on the K2 DMD, and naturally had five years worth of technical advances such as off the film metering, but they were both aimed at the professional market, having optional motor drives, data backs, and full information viewfinders. The most obvious difference is that the K2 DMD did not have interchangeable viewfinders. Production of the K2 DMD ceased in 1980 when LX production began, so Pentax clearly saw the LX as the replacement for the K2 DMD.

Significantly the K2 established the fact that many users, even professionals, wanted both manual and auto modes in the same camera. That might seem obvious now, but in the early 1970's many expert photographers. amateurs and pro, were still scathing about having an auto mode - they regarded it as dumbing down and something to go wrong, and did not want it to be present at all. My father was a semi-professional and had that view; and it was for users like him that Pentax still offered the KX and MX, the latter into the mid-80s. Meanwhile Canon with their professional F-1 series, and Nikon with their F and F2, offered basically manual cameras with auto as a quirky optional afterthought. The K2 tested the water for a camera designed as a combined auto-manual from the ground up, and learning from that, and also from watching Canon and Nikon, the LX was conceived.

Sadly the LX was too late to make a significant dent in the Canon F-1 and Nikon F Series established combined holds on the professional market, despite its being (IMHO) the best manual focus 35mm camera ever.

[pepitajack]

Thanks all for the replies

Actually I have bought both KX (really cheap with mlu not working) and a MX and while I'm loving the microprism only screen of the KX in daylight with the K55 I found some difficulties in dark environments where split screen is more effective.
I'd also suppose that with slower aperture lenses split screen could be a better choice and that's why I was asking the percentage of KX with the split screen installed.

I have to say I'm liking more the extra grip that KX larger body compared to the MX that with the M50/1.7 the center of gravity is starts to be a bit forward for my taste. I can't imagine with faster lenses.
.
If the KX with the split screen is going to be so rare, I'll probably search for K1000 later model or a Ricoh xr1 (seems to be a nice camera)

[stevebrot]

I cant swear to it but the KX viewfinder seems cleaner and sharper than the K1000 in my possession.

I don't have a K1000 at hand, but have wondered the same thing. Different focus screens, perhaps?

The original three K Series (K2, KX, KM) had a very short life

It is easy to assume that, but evidence from ads places the KX via mail order as late as 1979 and perhaps later. (Jussi does not have many ads from the early 1980s.) K2DMD and KMDMD were advertised as late as 1983. I think it is safe to say that the K-series (K1000 excluded) was probably a little longer lived than the M-series that followed it (MX excluded), say about five years (early 1975 to late 1979).

FWIW, end-of-life is notoriously hard to determine for many mid-70s to mid-80s camera models in that direct replacements are hard to pin down. Even the Spotmatic F was still in the mix sale-wise two years after the KM released.


Steve

[Wasp]

I will be that guy and mention the K1000SE which came with a split image focusing screen for just a little extra (no idea just how much).

[onlineflyer]

In order of rarity, most readily available to least readily available.

1. KX silver, microprism ring and matte screen (fairly available)
2. KX black, microprism ring and matte screen (fairly available)
3. KX motor drive, silver, microprism ring and matte (harder to find)
4. KX motor drive, black, microprism ring and matte (harder to find)
5. KX motor drive, silver, split screen (even harder to find)
6. KX motor drive, black, split screen (very rare)

[Papa_Joe]

It is easy to assume that, but evidence from ads places the KX via mail order as late as 1979 and perhaps later. (Jussi does not have many ads from the early 1980s.) K2DMD and KMDMD were advertised as late as 1983. I think it is safe to say that the K-series (K1000 excluded) was probably a little longer lived than the M-series that followed it (MX excluded), say about five years (early 1975 to late 1979).
Steve

According to our german pentax specialist, on whom you normally can rely on, the K2 and the K2DMD were produced from 1976 to 1980. Pentax (D)SLR-Info und Schmickis Fotos
Production stopped with the start of the production of the LX, which was introduced in 1980. Which all makes sense, as I think we can agree the LX replaced the K2DMD.
Also in 1980 started the production of the ME super, which replaced the ME. The ME, which featured aperture priority only, was built from 1976 to 1980, same time as the K2DMD. Pentax replaced these two cameras with the LX and the ME super. The ME super reintroducing a manual mode.

Very interesting under the comments of Lord Lucan, is the fact, that Pentax stopped producing both better manual models, the KX and the KM already in 1976. Only continuing the very basic K1000. The follow up for the KX, the MX was introduced in 1980 only.

Looks, as if already in the 70s pentax did not know where to head.