[LesDMess]

As I understand it - but not sure, the younger K1000's production process underwent some cost reduction - both material and assembly.

To your point the KX production run was much shorter than the K1000.

---------- Post added 02-12-14 at 08:11 PM ----------

I was just reading over the Leica MP's specs and it is similar to the K1000 except that it cost a bit more. Probably because it has a motor option . . .

[Swift1]

As I understand it - but not sure, the younger K1000's production process underwent some cost reduction - both material and assembly.

To your point the KX production run was much shorter than the K1000.

---------- Post added 02-12-14 at 08:11 PM ----------

I was just reading over the Leica MP's specs and it is similar to the K1000 except that it cost a bit more. Probably because it has a motor option . . .

Yes...the motor option...

[Pioneer]

I was just reading over the Leica MP's specs and it is similar to the K1000 except that it cost a bit more. Probably because it has a motor option . . .

Yes. I bought an M6 once (a slightly older version of the more expensive MP) and could not for the life of me figure out what was so great. The lenses are certainly very nice but my K1000 is much easier to actually work with. At least I can see exactly what I am taking a picture of. And the batteries are WAYYY less expensive and last longer. A lot longer. So I kept the K1000 and sold the M6.

I also found the lenses were just a tad expensive. I recently paid about $35 for an SMC Pentax M 50mm f2 with a working P3N attached. The lens is very clean and takes terrific pictures, and I was very happy. After I picked up the M6 I went shopping for a nice Leica lens. It was recommended that I look for a Leica Summicron 50mm lens which, by the way, has a maximum aperture of f2...just like my nifty little Pentax M lens. I almost choked when I found out that a 1950s version was going for $800...with ugly glass. (I haven't figured out how glass gets ugly but, oh well.) If I was interested in something more recent, like the early 80s (about when my Pentax M lens was assembled) it was going to cost my two very large bills to even get in the ballpark!

Anyway, now when I read somebody's gripes about the cost of some of the recent Pentax glass I just kind of grin.

[keyofnight]

I was just reading over the Leica MP's specs and it is similar to the K1000 except that it cost a bit more. Probably because it has a motor option . . .

I ran across an article on old Leica advertisements. One on the M4 reads: "This 'pro' doesn't boast electronic circuitry. It doesn't have photocells to select the area of interest. No little indicators to tell you there's not enough light. The Leica M4 is strictly for those of you who prefer to do your own thinking, your own creating. As long as creativity can't be computerized, we will continue to make it."



It's interesting. In the rangefinder community, people value the low-tech "Think Camera" style: Leica Ms, Zeiss Ikons, and Voightlander Bessas are perfectly acceptable cameras. More to the point, people are more willing to pay a premium for a lack of certain features in the rangefinder community. But in the SLR community…the attitudes are different, and simplicity isn't valued quite as much. It's strange.

No matter what: I am glad to find myself in good company through this thread.

[LesDMess]

That's because they couldn't design in a meter until the M5 in 1971 and then it wasn't well accepted as it grew too large . . .

[stevebrot]

The Leica M4 is strictly for those of you who prefer to do your own thinking, your own creating. As long as creativity can't be computerized, we will continue to make it."

Does that mean that creativity can be computerized? After all, they did quit making the M4.


Steve

[LesDMess]

Steve, I believe there are PS actions/plugins that will turn uncreative photos into something creative . . .

[keyofnight]

Steve, I believe there are PS actions/plugins that will turn uncreative photos into something creative . . .

Good call. (;

[stevebrot]

Steve, I believe there are PS actions/plugins that will turn uncreative photos into something creative . . .

Yep...PS is the most effective way to turn photographs into creative expression, or so I have been told.


Steve

[ChrisPlatt]

When Auto Composition is introduced it won't allow you to take a bad photo.
I'm sure Canon and Nikon are working on it right now.

Chris

[Canada_Rockies]

When Auto Composition is introduced it won't allow you to take a bad photo.
I'm sure Canon and Nikon are working on it right now.

Chris

Nor will it allow you to be creative. Eyes upper right third intersection, check. Arms not cut off at the elbow, check. Focus on eyes, not tip of nose, check ...

[Paul MaudDib]

It's interesting. In the rangefinder community, people value the low-tech "Think Camera" style: Leica Ms, Zeiss Ikons, and Voightlander Bessas are perfectly acceptable cameras. More to the point, people are more willing to pay a premium for a lack of certain features in the rangefinder community. But in the SLR community…the attitudes are different, and simplicity isn't valued quite as much. It's strange.

Yeah, I'm definitely with the rangefinder community on this. I shoot a lot of cameras that have no meters, and it's absolutely no big deal, and it's a really fun exercise in shooting.

Negative film has a really wide exposure latitude. You can miss with most film by about -1 to +2, and 3 stops is a pretty big error once you get accustomed to shooting sunny f/16. Honestly it's pretty easy to learn, it's just:

f/16: Full, intense sun. A beach on a sunny afternoon at 2pm. A frame covered in snow in full sun, etc.
f/11: Normal sun. An open rural or urban setting at midday.
f/8: Slight shadow: The faintest, whispiest clouds.
f/5.6: Strong shadow: In a slightly shaded area under a tree, or full cloud cover.
f/4: Closed shadows, a lightly canopied forest or dense clouds.

If you can remember a few of these, you can interpolate the rest, trying to hit that -1 to +2 range as best as you can (so aim a bit high if you're unsure). Then, set your shutter to the reciprocal of the ISO. For example, on a beach with 400 film you'd set f/16 1/400 (or 1/500). From there you can set equivalent exposures as far as your equipment will allow.

If you can learn that rule of thumb you can learn to eyeball most exposures, which is really quite fun to do. Or, try to guess an exposure and then check against the meter in your DSLR. Either way you'll start thinking about where you actually need to adjust your exposure, because it's not really necessary to do it every thirty seconds. It's quite freeing to worry about your picture instead of the exposure. You can also shoot all kinds of oddball meterless cameras with confidence. There's lots of interesting, quality MF/LF gear out there for cheap (Pentax included). Handling a MF/LF negative or slide of a beautiful picture you took is a real treat (although slide film has a narrow latitude and will be tougher to shoot without a meter, consider bracketing).

Portra 400 especially is good for this. The exposure latitude there is extremely high. Or a B+W film in Rodinal 1:100 stand developed for 1h is a pretty good recipe for everything (mystery films, etc). After a little while you can basically take wild-ass guesses on everything and get good pictures out of it, which is a blast.

[Canada_Rockies]

Sunny 16 works really well with the M lenses on my K10D. I don't have to remember which aperture reads right in the meter, and I grew up with the little pieces of paper in the film box for enough years that it is ingrained in me. I highly recommend that some of us should get back to these guides. Fancy meters are fooled by situations that are not in their databanks. Thank for reminding us, Paul.

[jakeblues]

Yeah, I'm definitely with the rangefinder community on this. I shoot a lot of cameras that have no meters, and it's absolutely no big deal, and it's a really fun exercise in shooting.

Negative film has a really wide exposure latitude. You can miss with most film by about -1 to +2, and 3 stops is a pretty big error once you get accustomed to shooting sunny f/16. Honestly it's pretty easy to learn, it's just:

f/16: Full, intense sun. A beach on a sunny afternoon at 2pm. A frame covered in snow in full sun, etc.
f/11: Normal sun. An open rural or urban setting at midday.
f/8: Slight shadow: The faintest, whispiest clouds.
f/5.6: Strong shadow: In a slightly shaded area under a tree, or full cloud cover.
f/4: Closed shadows, a lightly canopied forest or dense clouds.

If you can remember a few of these, you can interpolate the rest, trying to hit that -1 to +2 range as best as you can (so aim a bit high if you're unsure). Then, set your shutter to the reciprocal of the ISO. For example, on a beach with 400 film you'd set f/16 1/400 (or 1/500). From there you can set equivalent exposures as far as your equipment will allow.

If you can learn that rule of thumb you can learn to eyeball most exposures, which is really quite fun to do. Or, try to guess an exposure and then check against the meter in your DSLR. Either way you'll start thinking about where you actually need to adjust your exposure, because it's not really necessary to do it every thirty seconds. It's quite freeing to worry about your picture instead of the exposure. You can also shoot all kinds of oddball meterless cameras with confidence. There's lots of interesting, quality MF/LF gear out there for cheap (Pentax included). Handling a MF/LF negative or slide of a beautiful picture you took is a real treat (although slide film has a narrow latitude and will be tougher to shoot without a meter, consider bracketing).

Portra 400 especially is good for this. The exposure latitude there is extremely high. Or a B+W film in Rodinal 1:100 stand developed for 1h is a pretty good recipe for everything (mystery films, etc). After a little while you can basically take wild-ass guesses on everything and get good pictures out of it, which is a blast.

This.

I learned sunny 16 while shooting a broken K1000. Maybe one day I will be able to afford a meterless Leica.

[Pioneer]

Here where I live it seems more like Sunny 11 most of the time. Not sure why that is, maybe it comes with living a mile above sea level, but it seems to work with all my cameras, metered or meterless.