[TwoUptons]

It's a nice workaround if you don't have a shutter release cable. I used it many times before I finally got one.

I have a little clockwork self timer that screws into the cable release threads on my K1000. I may have used it twice...

-Eric

[stevebrot]

Again for me a I series K1000 and a KM are the same camera, how many use the self timer today?

Ummm...doing so is standard operating procedure when on-tripod for Pentax dSLRs with shake-reduction; a 2-second delay disables the SR feature. It also allows the tripod to settle after the shutter press, if one does not have an IR or cable remote in the bag. I have used that hack for years, particularly for cameras with electronic timer.

In addition, a few of my film cameras (no Pentax models)* execute "mirror up" on shutter press with self-timer, a benefit if MLU is not a feature. The vibration from the clockwork being ignored, of course.


Steve

* Ricoh Singlex TLS, Ricoh XR-2s, and both my VX Exaktas

[monochrome]

I have one of the original I series K1000, with the serial number on the top and the K55 f2, it's exactly the same as a KM without self timer...and it was introduced as replacement for the similar Spotmatic SP1000 which also came with the kit lens Takumar 55mm f2

I never bothered with a K1000 or even a KM until I came across a virtually unused early MIJ K1000 with K55/2 attached. I had it deep-CLA’ed for posterity and enjoy using it from time to time but the KX is my workhorse. I also have two CLA’ed DMDs and two CLA’ed K2’s that I obtained through camera swaps.

It almost isn’t worth selling excess K series cameras any more.

[Lord Lucan]

I always felt the K1000 was nothing more than a cheaper, over- simplified KM to give novices an entry point to the Pentax brand since a manual, base model was lacking in the "M" line. I know it remained popular and sold for many years but that's my view.

It's not a feeling that the K1000 was a cheaper and simplified KM, its a fact. Pentax's intent with the K1000 was to offer the cheapest big-brand (Pentax was big in those days) SLR on the market. They had not long introduced the K Series when the fashion suddenly turned towards smaller cameras (led by the Olympus OM-1), so Pentax responded with the M Series.

But that left Pentax with the K series tooling and production lines. So they turned the KM production line to producing K1000s simply by omitting the self timer, depth of field preview and a few other minor features to cut cost. In fact the KM in turn had originated as the Spotmatic F with the screw mount replaced by a bayonet, so the K1000 was essentially a 1960's design. At the other end of the range the K2 was enhanced for the professional market as the K2DMD. Neither the entry or the professional ends of the market were so influenced by the fashion for smallness.

As for the M series lacking a base manual model, wasn't that the MX? I know you could get a motor drive and other professional accessories for the MX, but a bare new MX cost less than a K1000 in the UK in the 1980's I remember - IMHO Pentax were already exploiting the cult status of the K1000 and the fact that art schools recommended it to their students.

Today, K1000s sell for silly prices. I find it particularly galling when I see K2s and KXs being advertised on Ebay as "Like a K1000!", but cheaper as if they are second bests.

[nickthetasmaniac]

As for the M series lacking a base manual model, wasn't that the MX? I know you could get a motor drive and other professional accessories for the MX, but a bare new MX cost less than a K1000 in the UK in the 1980's I remember

Really? My understanding was that the MX was introduced as a top-of-the-line model.

Today, K1000s sell for silly prices. I find it particularly galling when I see K2s and KXs being advertised on Ebay as "Like a K1000!", but cheaper as if they are second bests.

And yet every time another blog publishes a ‘SLRs for beginners’ article they include the K1000 because it’s such good value... I don’t get it.

[g026r]

Since it seems relevant here, @wbsmith200 has a blog post over at Film Shooters Collective discussing the original 3 K-series cameras as overshadowed gems: Special K Pentax | Bill Smith | Film Shooters Collective

[stevebrot]

As for the M series lacking a base manual model, wasn't that the MX?

Ummmm...no

The MX was intended as a KX replacement and had features and system compatibility intended for professional use*. The market segment was that of the Olympus OM-1 and until the debut of the LX, the MX was Pentax's professional model. It was also not inexpensive.


Steve

* Motor drive, bulk back, and similar

[TwoUptons]

The M series represented the beginning of the switch from ‘all manual’ being the cheapest option to ‘all automatic’ being the cheapest option.

I’m thinking Pentax MG, Nikon EM, Olympus OM10 and such.

With the electronic shutters, manual was the expensive option...

-Eric

[old_manual_guy]

It almost isn’t worth selling excess K series cameras any more.

I will quote you the next time my wife suggests I need to divest of some of my excess.

[tonyzoc]

Ummmm...no

The MX was intended as a KX replacement and had features and system compatibility intended for professional use*. The market segment was that of the Olympus OM-1 and until the debut of the LX, the MX was Pentax's professional model. It was also not inexpensive.


Steve

* Motor drive, bulk back, and similar

If I remember correctly..the K1000 with. 50/2 was around $145 while the MX with the same lens was about $225...this was in upstate NY around 78-79. My first Pentax was the MX which I chose over the Nikon FM and Olympus OM-1n...because the later 2 we're about $40-$60 more than the MX. A couple of years later I bought a black MX body from B&H for $192...I followed that in 83 with the Super Program with a 50/1.7 and I like I paid near $270 for it. Oh...and back then the 40/2.8 sold for the same price as a 50/2...about $60. (Note...I'm remembering 40 yrs ago so forgive me if I'm off)

[edom31]

My first Pentax was the MX which I chose over the Nikon FM and Olympus OM-1n...because the later 2 we're about $40-$60 more than the MX.

I got the K-1000and OM-1 second hand... I'd choose the K-1000 for results (even with a 50/2) over the OM-1 with a Zuiko 50/1.8.... But for handling and the "experience", the OM-1 is a lovely machine!!!

[stevebrot]

(Note...I'm remembering 40 yrs ago so forgive me if I'm off)

Those numbers sound about right to me. I seriously considered both the MX and OM1 and passed on both due to oversized hands not working well with the control layouts. I would have liked an FM, though.


Steve

[Cuthbert]

Really? My understanding was that the MX was introduced as a top-of-the-line model.

Yes, Lord Duncan mixes up few things, the MX was indeed the top of the line DURING the production of the 5 K models, KM and K1000 were produced in parallel from 1976 to 1977 when Pentax discontinued KM and KX, while K2 and K2DMD remained in production for longer.

Again, offering the KM and K1000 at the same time was the Pentax product strategy they had in the early 70s with the Spotmatic II and F and the SP500 and SP1000. The two "traditional" K bodies were discontinued as the MX became the KX replacement and people started to be more interested in smaller cameras therefore they didn't need to offer the KM and K1000 at the same time.

The K2s remained in production for longer because their natural successor was the LX IMO, the K2DMD exposure system has the same "as long as it takes" functions of of the LX.

Another picture of the 5Ks....I see why the K1000 has remained in production for so long, the building quality is IMO in the same ballpark of professional Nikons and Canons of the same era, while M bodies feel a little...ehm...weak.

Ummmm...no

The MX was intended as a KX replacement and had features and system compatibility intended for professional use*. The market segment was that of the Olympus OM-1 and until the debut of the LX, the MX was Pentax's professional model. It was also not inexpensive.


Steve

* Motor drive, bulk back, and similar

I think the first attempt to make a pro camera was the K2DMD, it definitely feels more "pro" than the MX. Price was "pro" too, I think above $500 in the late 70s. IMO it's a worthy competitor of the F2 and the F-1n of the era, minus additional viewfinders but as heavy duty as those cameras.

[arnold]

[IMG][/IMG]

This Retinette 1A was the simplest and most common of the Retinettes. It was my first camera bought in 1961. It had a remarkable three element lens, and was a delight to use. No range finder or light meter on it but that soon developed my skill at estimating exposure an distance. Just three settings for each shot.
Set estimate distance, choose one of four speeds, and set the appropriate aperture on the fully independent 'wheels'. Some of my best pictures were taken with this, and here is an example I took with my first roll of Kodachrome 10 in early 1961

[IMG][/IMG]

[gofour3]

(Note...I'm remembering 40 yrs ago so forgive me if I'm off)

These are "list" prices from a Canadian Pentax price list dated January, 23 1978:

K2DMD (Black MP/SI) $566.50
K2 (Chrome MP) $448.50
K2 (Black MP) $471.46
MX (Chrome MP/SI) $316.17
MX (Black MP/SI) $334.50
ME (Chrome MP/SI) $303.50
ME (Black MP/SI) $321.50
K1000 (Body only MP) $165.00
K1000 (with M50/2 MP) $299.50
K1000 (with M50/2 SI) $310.00

The M50/2 was only available with the K1000, there was no separate price for it listed in my list.

Phil.