[TwoUptons]

A good KM bought used and CLA’ed (by a good technician) might cost $200 all-in. Add $50 for a K1000, so $200 - $250 for a basic mechanical film camera that will last as long as the meter and (few) electronics. If it breaks get another CLA - parts are easy to get from donor cameras if necessary.

Why on earth do we need a $1,000 basic mechanical film camera?

That's the problem... it would cost $1,000...

If someone could do a basic film camera in any SLR mount with a fully functional shutter, hot shoe and meter that somehow coupled to lenses for under $500 I'd be impressed with their project management skill.
But it would have to be a technical wonder to overcome the 8 or so functional K-mount film cameras I have right now... never mind the horde of old cameras I could get for that money...

I'm afraid that by the time we've worn out all the old film cameras, the folks who never left or have come back to film will have died off (I'm in that group) and the ones that picked it up as a new hobby after starting in digital will have moved on to something else.

-Eric

[pres589]

The issue with used vs. new is getting people that can CLA or repair the old gear. Not that it's really any better with new but at least you might have a chance at factory support with a new body should this hypothetical company want to play along. Let's say I buy a Super-A for $75 online. Who do I send it to for a CLA that really knows the camera and tests it well? Eric isn't going to be doing what he's been doing forever and it's like that with others. I don't know if the situation is better with Nikon and older cameras. I bet it's as bad or worse with most any other company save for Leica.

[nickthetasmaniac]

...
With rapid prototyping, laser cutting, and modern manufacturing, it seems like most of the gears, etc. could be produced fairly rapidly. Does anyone have experience with these things? Would modern manufacturing lower costs without cutting quality?
...

I recommend reading this article about the development of the Nikon S3 2000 'Millennium' rangefinder. Bear in mind that Nikon weren't reverse engineering anything, the original 1958 S3 was their design. It was also fully mechanical, so there was no circuitry involved. Nonetheless, its interesting to see how hard it was to get the project off the ground... Everything was done by hand and even during peak production, 30 dedicated staff were only building 500 units a month.

Nikon | Imaging Products | Nikon S3 Year 2000 Millennium Model

[womble]

The issue with used vs. new is getting people that can CLA or repair the old gear. Not that it's really any better with new but at least you might have a chance at factory support with a new body should this hypothetical company want to play along. Let's say I buy a Super-A for $75 online. Who do I send it to for a CLA that really knows the camera and tests it well? Eric isn't going to be doing what he's been doing forever and it's like that with others. I don't know if the situation is better with Nikon and older cameras. I bet it's as bad or worse with most any other company save for Leica.

Camera Rescue in Finland are training people to repair film cameras.

The loooooong term issue is that as more and more older film cameras become irreparable, the pool of user cameras becomes ever smaller.

[nickthetasmaniac]

Camera Rescue in Finland are training people to repair film cameras.

I wish them all the best. In the last couple of years two of the best Australian techs retired (my 'Leica guy' and my 'Everything Else guy'). Unfortunately there's not really anyone replacing them, unless you count the young guys on Gumtree who's idea of a CLA is disassemble - pour alcohol everywhere - reassemble...

The loooooong term issue is that as more and more older film cameras become irreparable, the pool of user cameras becomes ever smaller.

I'm really curious how long mechanical bodies can continue to be serviceable. There's early Leica's around today that are approaching 100yrs old and are still perfectly usable. But how long can that continue? Certain parts are fairly easy to fabricate (I recently had new shutters fabricated for two SV's), but others would either be impossible or horrendously expensive...

There's a perception that a serviced mechanical body will 'last forever', but I wonder how long forever actually is.

[Lord Lucan]

I chipped in a bit for this long shot. Idea was to create a basic body like k1000, fm2, canon something with a different front plate which would have the mount to match your lenses. ..... I’ll buy it if it ever comes to market.

If you want a new film camera, Nikon make them : Film Cameras | Buy Film Camera | Nikon

The Retro look is currently in fashion, not retro function. There would be far more sales of a digital camera that looked like an old K-Series or Spotmatic rather than really being one. Fuji are successfully pursuing the Retro look digital line, for example with their XT-30 FUJIFILM X-T30 | Cameras | FUJIFILM X Series & GFX – Global

[pres589]

Something besides the "retro look" that I find appealing is the "retro size". One problem with attaining that now is maintaining the size of an LX or an M6 or an AE-1 etc is when you have to provide user controls for the aperture. And some way of displaying that aperture. It can be done but it's another thing that wasn't even a thought when the K1000 was new. It's also why I don't see any way that Pentax could just clone the K1000 today; almost none of their lenses have aperture rings anymore and people are not going to want to just run in Program or Shutter Priority modes when they pay real money for a camera. This is another reason why a new film 35mm Pentax body would look more like an MZ-S than an LX or Spotmatic.

[TwoUptons]

Something besides the "retro look" that I find appealing is the "retro size". One problem with attaining that now is maintaining the size of an LX or an M6 or an AE-1 etc is when you have to provide user controls for the aperture. And some way of displaying that aperture. It can be done but it's another thing that wasn't even a thought when the K1000 was new. It's also why I don't see any way that Pentax could just clone the K1000 today; almost none of their lenses have aperture rings anymore and people are not going to want to just run in Program or Shutter Priority modes when they pay real money for a camera. This is another reason why a new film 35mm Pentax body would look more like an MZ-S than an LX or Spotmatic.

I think the way to do that on a body designed around DFA lenses is to have a single knob on top with a round screen like a smart watch.
Tap to change modes, and the display shows whatever you need.
Tap to aperture priority and the apertures available are around the knob with an arrow to the one selected. ISO and shutter speed are visible as a reference, with color coding for alerts and such (shutter too slow, etc.)
Tap to manual and there's shutter and aperture... maybe a swipe to switch between them?
You could also do it with a second display to show whatever the knob doesn't, and that might look better...

It could work...

-Eric

[pres589]

I think a pair of knobs with collars and an LCD would do it. Left-hand knob is mode, collar is metering mode selection. Right-hand knob is exposure time, collar is f-stop for lenses in A-mode or which lack aperture rings. LCD would have to be small and probably lives where the film advance & frame number display would live, furthest to the right. Buttons on the back side of the top plate for things like ISO (DX or manual selection), AF mode / point spread selection. Integrated data back with the interface being wifi or Bluetooth controlled.


The sad thing is that I don't think Pentax could sell more than, well, 50 a year at best, based on Nikon F6 sales numbers. But this should make the F6 look like yesterday's news.

[jawats]

I think a pair of knobs with collars and an LCD would do it. Left-hand knob is mode, collar is metering mode selection. Right-hand knob is exposure time, collar is f-stop for lenses in A-mode or which lack aperture rings. LCD would have to be small and probably lives where the film advance & frame number display would live, furthest to the right. Buttons on the back side of the top plate for things like ISO (DX or manual selection), AF mode / point spread selection. Integrated data back with the interface being wifi or Bluetooth controlled.


The sad thing is that I don't think Pentax could sell more than, well, 50 a year at best, based on Nikon F6 sales numbers. But this should make the F6 look like yesterday's news.

I found this Olympus to be rather fascinating. If one could offload the processing, etc. to a smart phone, lots of space could be saved. AIR A01 | Olympus. Then one could build a body resembling the nostalgic K1000 (or others), and save a great deal of space.

[pres589]

Thinking hard nope on that Oly thing. Would you want your current camera's controls handled that way?

[stevebrot]

(1) Is the basic K-mount (as found on the K1000) an open standard?

Yes

2) Watching a few videos on the K1000 and it's guts, it seems complex

Not really. It is essentially similar to the original 1964 Spotmatic as far as shutter, viewfinder, and film transport and almost identical to that on my 1974 Spotmatic F for the same components. Simply put, most competent film camera repair persons should be able to service a K1000.

(3) In your opinion, is the K1000 valued because of: (1) classic status; (2) build; (3) Pentax name; (4) some combination of these; or (5) something else?

It is valued because it has been the recommended camera for high school and college photography classes pretty much since the K1000 was released.

(4) If another company produced a solid body modeled closely on the K1000, with a K-mount, would you consider buying it, and what would you consider paying for it?

I am pretty plush with working film bodies, but if someone like Cosina were to release a K-mount SLR similar in build and feature to my Voigtlander R3M,* I would give it a serious look-see. FWIW, I paid about $750 for the R3M sans lens and would expect a similar SLR to be in the same price range.


Steve

* Full mechanical Copal vertical shutter (1-1/2000s), SPD built-in meter, magnesium body, trigger wind capable, excellent viewfinder. Sort of like a K-mount Bessaflex TM.

[Astro-Baby]

Maybe something more like a Chinon CE5 but made to a better standard would be a better fit. The CE5 was mostly electronic so may help keep costs down, plastic fantastis so may help tooling but a metal body would be nicer, vertical copal shutter, speeds to 2000, AP mode, ditch the motordrive connection and add in removable focus screen, skip the AF ports.

Big up on the retro styling, lots of brass and chrome....who knows. You would still have to get it in the shop for sub £1000. No idea what margins were made in the hey day of SLRs but tight margins would mean....

£1000 end user price
£800 - £900 Price to retail
£700 - £800 Price to distribution
Manufacturing would need a minimum of 40% below that to cover costs, transport, marketing plus an actual prodit so lets assume 50% to be on the safe side and to cover the unknown.

So you would have have to be able to make it for around £400, probably less when is all is said and done you would need finished goods at the factory gate for probably less than £400 and I would guess closer to £200 in order to cover debelopment costs off quickly. Theres not much you can make for £200 when you are likley to have small volume as you woukd struggle to recover costs for tooling and moulding.

Quite recently I needed some plastic mouldings, we would have needed maybe 5,000 of these. Cost to CAD it up and produce the mould ( and this was a quite small part, far less complex than a camera body, turned out at £150,000 for making a mould. Given the latge number of parts for a camera......body, winder, shutter speed, rewin capstan, top and bottom case, body etc etc etc you can see it would be pretty expensive.

A major player like Nikon can of course engage in a vanity project and a lot of the camera makers did just that prior to leaving the business.....some of them made the last and very best or harked back to a bygone age as a parting shot. Nikon did the FM3A, Konica did a kickass rangefinder etc. But thay already had most of the tooling, the staff on hand etc and of course could divert funds from the fest of the business. I think it would be terribly tough to do it from a standing start.

[maw]

The K1000 was out of date technically on the day it was introduced.

I dont think the volume would be there and some parts may be simple impossible to manufacture again irrespective.

If you were to produce a modern film body, electronic controls would likely be a functionally better and cheaper technology, most of which could be carried over from existing DSLRs. For a low-volume brand like Pentax, the resulting economies of scale might just make it an attractive option, if you could find enough buyers. However, I’d be highly sceptical of that being the case.

I agree that mechanical components are the crucial node currently reflex and / or mirrorless use 90% electronic components and the market is increasingly oriented in that direction, see smartphones.
So realistically I don't see anything promising on the horizon.
Honestly the K1000 was a mule that made history in the golden years of film,
but if I had to choose I would prefer the MX or the Me Super or even the Super A, more manageable and ahead in technical progress.

[stevebrot]

but if I had to choose I would prefer the MX or the Me Super or even the Super A, more manageable and ahead in technical progress.

For a fully mechanical camera for manual exposure, there are any number of contemporary K-mount bodies from the time with richer feature sets that would be preferable to the K1000. The ME Super and Super A, being battery dependent and clumsy in manual mode would not make my short list, though the fully mechanical Ricoh XR-1 or XR-1s might.*


Steve

* Full-information viewfinder, split-image/microprism, meter switch, 1/125s sync, shutter lock, vertical metal shutter, DOF preview, multi-exposure, and (woo hoo!) a self timer.