[TomB_tx]

. . . same for the lenses, I am only interested in the 35mm to the 58mm range,
... On the other hand: over the past years I have the same problem with the old Leitz enlargers, the Focomats 1C and 2C. In 1980 I worked half a year as an assistant to a b/w printer in Paris and could pay for the 2C that way. Now they're almost given away. My darkroom looks like a Leitz forest.

Sounds familiar: I'd hate to say how many 50s I have, between Leica (screw mount, M, & R) and Pentax. Otherwise I've stayed mainly in 35-90 range.
I used a Focomat IIC at the camera shop I helped at in college in the 1960s. Wish I'd had the space and money for one. Got an Omega B22XL instead, which I'm setting up again.

[PPPPPP42]

I am normally a person who believes everything should be used, this argument comes up a lot in the gun forums, people wanting stuff to just sit all perfect in a collection, while others want to shoot everything. I shoot what is still easily shootable.
To continue the analogy shooting film to me is like shooting an Arisaka rifle, sure you can get the ammo for it, the gun works perfectly, and its a lot of fun, but its cost prohibitive to do more than take it out once in a super rare while because that caliber is all but discontinued and costs a fortune, wheras with my Russian stuff shooting either 7.62x39 or 7.62x54r I am literally drowning in cheap surplus (thousands of rounds for a few hundred dollars) so I can take them out all the time, shoot to my hearts content, play around with trick shots, and not worry about breaking the bank because each bullet costs $1.

Though it wouldn't be a very popular opinion in this part of the forum, I think film photography is nearly obsolete at this point, you can't just go around and drop a shutter bomb on every place you see. With my K20D I can do that and it costs me nothing, so to me film cameras don't really have a practical purpose anymore, like the Arisaka rifle they are fun to use, a really cool piece of craftsmanship and history but due to the costs involved with the exception of pure artistic photography they are better off retired to a shelf where they can be appreciated for what they were, not what they are.
I don't feel i'm taking anything away from the people who want to still use them because despite all the people trying out film for the first time, the number of film shooters is declining faster than the cameras are breaking down and dying so there are a lot of extras getting sold for pocket change, especially since I'm not looking for anything really useable like an LX.

[Nesster]

The situation is different for Pentax than, say, a gold plated Rectaflex or some highly collectible Leica, say. Ordinary use doesn't harm the value, but on the other hand these cameras are common enough that having a few just sit on a shelf isn't doing much harm either.

OTH, in order to keep the mechanicals in running order, one ought to at least excercise the equipment a couple of times a year, even without film.

So: since most 'regular' Pentaxes are neither rare nor especially valuable, what one collects depends on what one is interested in collecting

Sounds like the OP is about looking at significant models, which the AOHC list is a good one for. Other possibilities: maybe collect the entire first set of K mount models, say. Or just models that look good and seem like fun things to display. Or, maybe, duplicate the models that we have documentation that the Beatles used

Here would be a nifty start:

[monochrome]

Certain people might keep a 93% Winchester Model 1886 in a gun safe - but they might also, as a matter of personal honor and general principle, shoulder and discharge same from time to time, whatever the cost.

[Sluggo]

Which would be the essential?...

If you want to keep things affordable -

* At the risk of being pelted with rutabagas, I'd characterize the KM as the "essential" K-series body, ahead of the better known K1000 and even ahead of the KX that is much loved by most here. The KM occupies a sweet spot for the minimalists: it has the simplicity of the K1000, but when needed you can stop down for DOF preview. You can think of it as the classic Spotmatic but with K mount instead of M42.

* In my opinion any M-series body except maybe the MV/MV1 is worth picking up. They are plentiful, affordable, reliable once reconditioned, small, quiet, and have outstanding viewfinders. The MX is usually my favorite, but I just took my ME Super on a trip last weekend and found it a satisfying companion as well.

* Newer stuff: I love the P30n and P30t, but although they are good shooters, they aren't very collectible - I have a couple in my display case and I look right past them sometimes even when looking for them. Since you're already picking up a ZX-7 I'll leave off any comments on the autofocus era bodies.

[womble]

I'm not certain I buy the "analog is too expensive argument" any more. I bought a K10D in 2007 brand new, I then bought a second hand K20D in 2009, now I'm thinking I should really get a K5... With digital the market-driven pressure to upgrade continuously is very strong. I'm not certain how much that all adds up to, but it is a pretty penny, I bought my LX in 2004 for £150 and if I had to get rid of every camera I own bar one, I would keep the LX even above the K20D. All those upgrades is one hell of a lot of film. If I wanted to make things cheaper I could buy in larger bulk and develop myself. When I went to Venice last year I took the K20D, my LX, MX and Lubitel 2. Guess what, half of the images in my Flickr top twenty were ones shot on film, and a good proportion of those were shot on my Lubitel 2 which I was given for nothing. (Before anyone gets on a anti-lomo rant, my Lubitel is stunningly sharp!)

There are many reasons to shoot digital (I use it all the time for work, and certainly prefer it for macro work) but I don't think we can entirely write film off yet. The various specialist retailers of film in the UK are reporting increased sales in the last couple of years. Yes, it is a niche and not for everyone, but it still has a place. Eric Kim has an interesting blog post along these lines, even if he does use Leicas.

K.

[normhead]

My first was an SV... probably the only one I'd pay for... just for my memories.. even though my old Lunasix 3 has been broken for years. It works if you hit it hard enough... but how long will that last?

[Paul Ewins]

It always seems a shame to me to stick cameras in a glass case when they should be out and about taking superb images. You might as well just buy broken ones if they are just going to be dust collectors.

Best wishes, Kris.

Actually, I do precisely that. Most of my Pentax collection was bought from KEH's As-is section, usually for less than $10. I don't think any of my cameras rate as "mint" let alone NIB and that is just fine with me.

Honestly I don't think there are any particular models that a Pentax collection *must* have. If you wanted a representative selection then it might be an Asahiflex, a pre Spotmatic (S1, Sv etc), a Spotmatic, K1000, ME Super, LX, Super A, P5, SFXn (SF1n), ZX-5n (MZ-5n) or MZ-3, MZ-S.

[gofour3]

Though it wouldn't be a very popular opinion in this part of the forum, I think film photography is nearly obsolete at this point, you can't just go around and drop a shutter bomb on every place you see.

That’s one of the reasons we shoot film is to take it easy and plan each shot, that’s why we enjoy it. I think you need to take your Superprogram out again and run a roll of film though it, I’m thinking you have forgotten the joys of shooting film.

With my K20D I can do that and it costs me nothing, so to me film cameras don't really have a practical purpose anymore, like the Arisaka rifle they are fun to use, a really cool piece of craftsmanship and history but due to the costs involved with the exception of pure artistic photography they are better off retired to a shelf where they can be appreciated for what they were, not what they are.

Digital storage is not free, so unless you delete all your shots after you take them you do have a cost involved. You can create images in film that can’t be duplicated in digital. So yes there still is a reason to shoot film and it does have a practical purpose.

I don't feel i'm taking anything away from the people who want to still use them because despite all the people trying out film for the first time, the number of film shooters is declining faster than the cameras are breaking down and dying so there are a lot of extras getting sold for pocket change, especially since I'm not looking for anything really useable like an LX.

Film usage has increased over the last couple years, as more people are realizing that digital is not Valhalla. Just like vinyl records, young people are discovering the fun and creativity of film. Film cameras will last for decades with minimal repairs. Your K20D will be obsolete and broken within five years and will never be collectible. It’s just another consumer electronics gadget that is destined for landfill.

Phil.

[boriscleto]

Digital storage is not free, so unless you delete all your shots after you take them you do have a cost involved. You can create images in film that can’t be duplicated in digital. So yes there still is a reason to shoot film and it does have a practical purpose.

When a hard drive costs $.10 a gigabyte it might as well be free. The cost of digital photography after the initial investment in the camera is minuscule compared to the price of film photography.

Plus, Kodak just discontinued the only film they still make that I would shoot. In six months it will be gone.

[twitch]

Well if we were going to be penny pinching we wouldn't have any hobbies or go on any holidays. Now, how long would the average marriage survive this state of affairs? How expensive is divorce?

See I've proved it, film photography really is cheap

[boriscleto]

How expensive is divorce?

A lot more expensive than staying single.

[monochrome]

Well I'll just meta-hang out with Phil & Co. and shoot my KX and whichever other film camera has landed on my shelf this year. In most cases a PostPaid trip to Tennessee costs me more than the camera did in the first place. I can round-trip 1500 analog images before I've spent the up-front cost of a K-5, store them in a shoebox, and pass them around the living room when visitors want to see them.

Constant dSLR upgrades doesn't include the accessory upgrades for the upgraded camera bodies, lens upgrades, software upgrades, computer upgrades, monitor upgrades, network tech-guy visits and electricity.

Last and most important - for some unknown but not-debate-winnable reason (after this many years I can sense what battles to fight and what battles to retire graciously from) my wife absolutely will not tolerate a honking big dSLR with grip, zoom and flash on a family pleasure outing. She will tolerate a nice compact or MESuper with a K-35. Since I'd like to stay married and I'd like to enjoy my hobby - well - you get it.

[LaurenOE]

Last and most important - for some unknown but not-debate-winnable reason (after this many years I can sense what battles to fight and what battles to retire graciously from) my wife absolutely will not tolerate a honking big dSLR with grip, zoom and flash on a family pleasure outing. She will tolerate a nice compact or MESuper with a K-35. Since I'd like to stay married and I'd like to enjoy my hobby - well - you get it.

Ok, I'm a collector of Pentax too, but "tolerate" at a "pleasure outing"?

I draw the line about sleeping with my Pentax or having sex with it.

[normhead]

I draw the line about sleeping with my Pentax or having sex with it.

Is that because you tried it and didn't like it? Or is it a moral issue?