[ramseybuckeye]

I hope it's not entirely a threadjack, but I'm curious as to why so many claim that nobody could affordably make a mechanical camera these days.
I can buy a Japan movement automatic watch for under $150, a Spanish made Weber carb for about $350, a US made grain mill for about the same, Chinese bicycle derailleurs from 20 bucks on up, and I won't even bring up firearms.
What's so different about a film camera, especially if we were willing to allow for global manufacturing and/or "student grade" quality?

Probably because they have not stopping making those products for many years, and then started to re-make them.

[gofour3]

Top of my wish list would be any of these models in this order:
a) Pentax KX

That (KX) would be my first choice, as it's all manual but is much better that the K1000. If the price was reasonable and still a metal body, then sure.

Otherwise I'm with Ismael and would be happy if we got a new parts supply for existing film bodies. (More likely to happen than a new film camera)

Phil.

[kypfer]

Instead of just reviving old SLRs I would rather see some new design which merges old mechanical principles and modern electronics. What I would see is the camera with next set of attributes:
Mechanical manual film advance (I do not need electrical auto advance: each film frame will be better valued that way).
Optical viewfinder, which shows digital exposure information info in the way modern DSLR incorporates it.
Manual focus but with visual focus confirmation.
Modern exposure control (with ability to set aperture in case lens does not have an aperture ring).
P.S. Obviously it would be nice to see versions with m42 or K mount.

The Pentax *ist (film camera) sounds just like what you want and was the very reason I moved to Pentax all those years ago … maximum compatibility with my (since grown) collection of M42 lenses
A re-investment in a couple of KA Adaptall-2 mounts for my Tamron lenses (still in use!) and I was good to go
No mechanical film advance, unfortunately, so reliant on batteries (and incompatible with infra-red film), but, other than that, seems to tick all your boxes

[niels hansen]

I dont know the market in other countries, but in Denmark it is easy to get a manual SLR. Generally they are in good shape, the most common issue is stiff oil, they are used too little. All SLRs with a metal focal plane familiar to Copal square and the very underrated East Germany m42 models are good options.
It is not necessary with professional repair shops to take care of these juvels . Until my hands began to shake I made the maintenance myself. The most complicated is to change the fabric in the traditional focal plane shutter. Dont bother about the exposure meters. Today film photography is mostly slow photo and one meter in the hand is better than 10 on the camera if you are willing to use the brain. Using film for me is to get another approach than the highly automatic features in the DSLR. Developing BW is a must, enlarging yourself is the best

[house]

Those calling film cameras niche must have missed that the first post said there are more people in the film classes than the digital ones.

Those thinking digital is the future are living in the past. Ironically.

It would be great, but unlikely, if any new film slr would have a needle indicator for metering. I just find it clear and obvious compared to most other implementations.

[TwoUptons]

Those calling film cameras niche must have missed that the first post said there are more people in the film classes than the digital ones.

Those thinking digital is the future are living in the past. Ironically.

It would be great, but unlikely, if any new film slr would have a needle indicator for metering. I just find it clear and obvious compared to most other implementations.

Cameras that aren't in phones are already niche...
Interchangeable lens cameras are a niche within that niche...

And yes, for the great majority of photography, digital is the future. There's no irony there.
Commercial work is nearly exclusively digital, as is consumer work.
People who aren't hobbyists aren't terribly excited about spending $20/roll to get scans they could have shot with their phones...

Is there a niche for film? Sure, and I hope it remains viable until long after I'm gone, but I'm a hobbyist... I'm in that niche...

I expect the number of people taking photo classes now pales in comparison to, say 30 years ago... so while I'm excited there's additional interest in film, I don't see it ever getting back to where we were.
As an example, I live in a small city that is home to a well regarded art and design college.
30 years ago, there were several nice photo shops in town, and you could get your film and processing at basically any drugstore in town. 15 years ago there were three photo shops. Now there is one. If the art school wasn't here, I'm sure it would be gone as well. They are basically the only game in town for buying film (outside of Instax). Even Walmart stopped selling it.
And their film sales are down, though I'll blame that on supply, since that's what they've told me.
Add that to how few companies are actually making film in quantity (if Fuji making any of their own film any more, outside of Instax?), and there is a good explanation for where the supply is going...

So I'm glad people want to take classes, but I don't see the numbers to make for a powerful resurgence that would make film "the future"...

I would also be good with a needle indicator... though it would be cooler if there was a switchable overlay to drive the display...

-Eric

[Joetitch]

My thoughts are wouldn't it be nice if the manufacturer would offer a factory refurb on two of their past models. A basic and an advanced model. They could choose which one to do based on ease of making most common fault part for repair and offer to do it on a camera supplied by owner or one they had sourced. Not brand new I know but keeps production cost down?

Who would consider an MZ-s updated to also control KAf4?

---

Last edited by Joetitch; 05-09-2022 at 02:27 AM.

[Lord Lucan]

We keep having this discussion, and I have always said that the attraction of film is only based on the fact that high quality cameras from the film past can be bought for very little money. A new film camera today would cost so much that it would be dismissed by most of its potential market as unaffordable. Nikon discontinued their F6 (the last quality 35mm film SLR you could buy) not very long ago presumably because they could not make a profit from it any more, even expensive as it was.

I'd love a well-built K-mount film SLR camera with optionally-active TTL metering that allows me to set ISO, aperture and shutter speed, and use my K-mount and M42 film-era lenses... and I believe that's essentially a K1000

That describes a lot of cameras from that 1960-1980 period - manual only with TTL metering, which was the norm. There was nothing special about the K1000 and it was in fact rather inferior to many of the others, such as the KX, MX, most Spotmatics, also the Minolta SRT, Nikon FM etc.

EDIT #2: Now I think about it... wasn't the K1000 the "classic" photography student film camera, way back when?

It was, but only because it was (for a time at least) the cheapest big-brand manual-only 35mm camera on the market. Pentax deliberately made it so by stripping out some features from the KM which was already bottom of their range and was an out-dated Spotmatic with K-mount grafted on. If Pentax wanted to revive anything like the K1000, the KM would be a better choice because it had a self-timer - bearing in mind that selfies are such a thing these days.

[house]

I don't think many potential film shooters are looking for convenience or features. Quite the opposite. I use my KM for film, I have cameras with more features. Compacts ps cameras are having quite the resurgence as well though and some models are insanely expensive despite being basically plastic junk but as far as I understand it it's basically the optics that are driving what's expensive and what's cheap.

There's a lot of mixing stuff up going on. Selfies and film photography are two parallel things. Not the same person doing it. Causal photography has gone to the smartphone no doubt about it. More and more enthusiasts and professionals are shooting film though. Not sports or wildlife but "lifestyle", art, street and documentary. Availability and cost could kill it off though.

Those on a serious budget won't be shooting film as digital is lots cheaper. Decent dslr's can be had for very little these days.

[Alex645]

We keep having this discussion, and I have always said that the attraction of film is only based on the fact that high quality cameras from the film past can be bought for very little money.

Although cost in many cases may be one factor why film cameras continue to be used, we could start a whole new thread on why does anyone shoot film in the digital era.

For me, it has nothing to do with cost. It has everything to do with aesthetic and process. The notion of choosing and committing to an emulsion, with finite shots on a roll, and the vision of what the outcome will be with a significant delay. And if and when I think about the price, that forces me to be more deliberate, intentional, and precise.

Yes, realistically even a very simple new K1000-like SLR would be pricey, but whoever ventured into manufacturing such a model would be doing so for the love of photography and not for profits.

I agree that the KM would be a good choice, although the KX or K2 would also be welcome.

[niels hansen]

Although cost in many cases may be one factor why film cameras continue to be used, we could start a whole new thread on why does anyone shoot film in the digital era.

For me, it has nothing to do with cost. It has everything to do with aesthetic and process. The notion of choosing and committing to an emulsion, with finite shots on a roll, and the vision of what the outcome will be with a significant delay. And if and when I think about the price, that forces me to be more deliberate, intentional, and precise.

Yes, realistically even a very simple new K1000-like SLR would be pricey, but whoever ventured into manufacturing such a model would be doing so for the love of photography and not for profits.

I agree that the KM would be a good choice, although the KX or K2 would also be welcome.

very well spoken

[Lord Lucan]

For me, it [shooting with film] has nothing to do with cost. It has everything to do with aesthetic and process.

I agree, the aesthetics and involvement of film are attractive. I have done film processing myself in the past. But I did not word my post as well as I should have done. What I was trying to say was that the present resurgence of film using old cameras would not have happened if those old cameras were not available at bargain prices on Ebay etc. If the only film cameras available today were new ones like the Nikon F6 was until 2 years ago (at around $2500 I believe) I don't think many of your students would be using film.

In your OP you wondered if a billionaire might sponsor re-introducing a quality film SLR. My point is that unless he was almost giving them away at under, let's say, $500 each, there would not be many takers, and the cameras would probably cost ten times that to manufactiure given the re-tooling that would be needed.

[Alex645]

I agree, the aesthetics and involvement of film are attractive. I have done film processing myself in the past. But I did not word my post as well as I should have done. What I was trying to say was that the present resurgence of film using old cameras would not have happened if those old cameras were not available at bargain prices on Ebay etc. If the only film cameras available today were new ones like the Nikon F6 was until 2 years ago (at around $2500 I believe) I don't think many of your students would be using film.

In your OP you wondered if a billionaire might sponsor re-introducing a quality film SLR. My point is that unless he was almost giving them away at under, let's say, $500 each, there would not be many takers, and the cameras would probably cost ten times that to manufactiure given the re-tooling that would be needed.

Agreed. I'd estimate in my classes, perhaps one third are SLRs purchased used. A majority are hand-me-downs from friends, relatives, parents and grand parents.

Where "bargain" prices makes a difference IMO is when the camera or lens is in need of repair and replacing it is cheaper than repairing it.

[BigMackCam]

...There was nothing special about the K1000 and it was in fact rather inferior to many of the others, such as the KX, MX, most Spotmatics, also the Minolta SRT, Nikon FM etc.
...
... it was (for a time at least) the cheapest big-brand manual-only 35mm camera on the market. Pentax deliberately made it so by stripping out some features from the KM which was already bottom of their range and was an out-dated Spotmatic with K-mount grafted on. If Pentax wanted to revive anything like the K1000, the KM would be a better choice because it had a self-timer - bearing in mind that selfies are such a thing these days.

I'm a little embarassed to say I'm not well informed on the various Pentax SLRs. I just looked up the KM and yes... it seems like a better choice

[house]

I'm a little embarassed to say I'm not well informed on the various Pentax SLRs. I just looked up the KM and yes... it seems like a better choice

I own the KM and barely know the differences compared to the K1000. I though it was just the dof preview and the timer. Not very important features imho but people have different requirements I guess.

It's quite funny actually how a single and with today's eyes very basic feature would set the old models apart. This camera has 5 features **in total** and this has 6 **in total** which makes the latter totally professional and expensive

The accuracy of the meter, the quality of the viewfinder, durability and repairability would be top features in my book