Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-19-2020, 09:38 AM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 754
Reverse Engineering the K1000

Hey all,

I've been seeing a number of posts out there from film photographers which sing the praises of the K1000 and the Pentax 67/6x7 and 645 film cameras. Some of them go so far as to ask Pentax to produce these bodies again, even in limited numbers or special editions. I also see that used K1000 bodies in decent condition sell for more than other K-mount bodies of similar vintage (e.g., the

So, I've been thinking about it and had a few questions for y'all.

(1) Is the basic K-mount (as found on the K1000) an open standard? I see many companies produced lenses for the mount - did they have to license them from Pentax?

(2) Watching a few videos on the K1000 and it's guts, it seems complex (but nothing like a modern camera). 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?

(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?

(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?

Thanks for your thoughts!

07-19-2020, 10:43 AM - 1 Like   #2
maw
Pentaxian
maw's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sassari (Italy)
Posts: 1,118
QuoteOriginally posted by jawats Quote
I've been seeing a number of posts out there from film photographers which sing the praises of the K1000 and the Pentax 67/6x7 and 645 film cameras. Some of them go so far as to ask Pentax to produce these bodies again, even in limited numbers or special editions. I also see that used K1000 bodies in decent condition sell for more than other K-mount bodies of similar vintage
I also trust them because I have read many reviews or impressions here in Nadir many times and share them, although not exactly 100%.

This one seems to me a good case history. I own the MX and I own the LX, I've never had the K1000,

but I think the K factor is just one of the ingredients that have made the name Pentax a famous brand.

Review K1000 of Nadir
07-19-2020, 10:47 AM - 6 Likes   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 8,085
While it may be rather easy to redevelop/manufacture a K1000, I'm not so sure us film shooters would really want one? I find K1000 is overrated/overpriced and a KX/MX/LX is a better option for a manual film camera.

If Pentax was ever to release an updated film body, then a LXII would be my pick, with matrix metering and screen swaps from the top of the camera with the prism removed. (Like the 67ii)



Phil.

Last edited by gofour3; 07-19-2020 at 01:50 PM. Reason: Typo
07-19-2020, 11:08 AM - 1 Like   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,187
I think one of the things that made the K1000 so inexpensive was high volume production of the parts, and we would never see parts in that quantity. Additive manufacturing is really cool, but its strengths tend to be in small batches, not in high volume.

I also suspect an electronic shutter would be more affordable to build, so more like a P3 than a K1000.
But remember, a LX was an expensive camera when it was current. How much would you be willing to spend on a new film camera? $1,000?
When I bought my K1000 in 1982, it was the equivalent of $400 in today’s money, and that’s fully amortized over nearly 10 years of K-body production.

As for reputation, it’s a combination of popularity and fame. Hardware-wise, there’s nothing special about it.
There isn’t much to differentiate it from a bunch or mechanical cameras from a bunch of manufacturers.
Or really, much to differentiate it from a bazillionCanon AE1s...

Feature-wise, if I was going to buy a new film camera, I don’t need interchangeable finders. I would like ttl flash, P A S M shooting modes, auto/manual ISO, and +/- 2 stops exposure compensation. With an electronic shutter, that should be easy, though it would imply a different control philosophy than older cameras (how would you set aperture on a lens with no ring?)
I wouldn’t even mind autofocus... a reissue of the ZX-L with a brass mirror gear would be fine with me...

I’d also like a data back like scheme, with an optical imprint between frames of date, shutter, and aperture. But that’s not essential.

-Eric

07-19-2020, 11:27 AM - 1 Like   #5
Pentaxian
Wasp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Pretoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,650
QuoteOriginally posted by jawats Quote
(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?

(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?
In my mind, the K1000 is valued for reasons of nostalgia. Lots of people had one as their first camera and want one again. An MX, ME Super or Super A would be a better choice when shopping for a film camera IMHO.

I would not be in the market for a new K1000. I already have several unused film cameras.
07-19-2020, 11:49 AM - 1 Like   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
ismaelg's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Puerto Rico
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,678
Hello,

The K1000 is riding the nostalgia wave big time but it has earned it. A classic design proven to be almost indestructible. I still use mine bought new in 1989. But it also benefits of the limelight snowball effect as its siblings the KM, KX, plus the K2 and even other family members both older and newer are not that well known. It is the celebrity of the family.
But I agree it has become ridiculous as I've seen them skyrocket to stupid prices.
When Pentax discontinued it, the Chinese (last to build them) kept the tooling (I hope they paid for them) and it was produced as the MINGCA MCK1000 and some other names. Even those are now soughtafter because of the heritage.
A K1000 will be expensive to manufacture today. Material costs, cycle time and skills required to properly build and calibrate it would be too much. On the other hand I can't imagine the stir if replacement parts were available again! (Sign me up for a few pentaprisms)

Thanks,
Ismael
07-19-2020, 12:26 PM - 1 Like   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ramseybuckeye's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hampstead, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 17,277
some people buy the old cameras because they are cheap, and they couldn't afford them back when. But I don't know if people would buy a new one unless it came from a company with a reputation, and it would be hard to compete with old K1000 cameras and others becasue the are so plentiful. I don't quite understand it, but you are right that K1000s are going for way more than they are worth on some auction sites. I've got a K1000 and a couple other film cameras I've never used, I just bought an MX to use because I wanted a better camera than the K1000.

07-19-2020, 12:29 PM - 2 Likes   #8
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by jawats Quote
I've been seeing a number of posts out there from film photographers which sing the praises of the K1000 .... Some of them go so far as to ask Pentax to produce these bodies again
Not this again.
QuoteQuote:
(1) Is the basic K-mount (as found on the K1000) an open standard? ...
Yes.

QuoteQuote:
(2) Watching a few videos on the K1000 and it's guts, it seems complex (but nothing like a modern camera). 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 am an engineer and know that manufacturing is more complex than you seem to imagine. Many components of a product are made by specialist suppliers, such as shutters, the electronics, the photo-cells. You would need to persuade such suppliers to make tech that is at least 50 years out of date and has not been made by anyone for 25. I understand that one of the reasons Pentax stopped making it was that they could no longer source the components.

The K1000 was out of date technically on the day it was introduced. Today's potential suppliers of components would either flatly refuse to supply, or even if they could supply, would charge ridiculously high prices because they would realise there would be small volumes, despite the vociferous demands from a few. You can certainly make a film camera these days (they are still made) but it would be nothing like a K1000 except possibly in outward appearance.

QuoteQuote:
(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?
When introduced it was (deliberately) the cheapest big name SLR on the market and mainly for that reason became very popular, and in particular it become the camera recommended to students at art colleges etc. It was also manufactured for a very long time. While it was sturdy and reliable, there was nothing special about it and there were many similar (and generally superior) cameras by Pentax and other brands around at the time. To make it cheap the K1000 did not even have a self-timer, hardly in tune with today's selfie craze. It was so popular that today everyone's grand-dad seems to have owned one once and recommends it to his grand-kids if they ask his advice. And the grand-dad's themselves, if they got rid of the original, can want one themselves for nostalgia. The result of this is that used K1000s are greatly over-priced and over-rated, to the extent that they have become like a cult among some.

QuoteQuote:
(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?
No I would not buy it. And even if I wanted one I would not buy a new one because Ebay is awash with film SLRs, many in perfect condition. And even if I were in that sort of market I would prefer a KX, MX, Minolta SRT-101 or many of the other numerous similar cameras offering better value for money than K1000s.
07-19-2020, 02:05 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Astro-Baby's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Reigate, Surrey
Posts: 764
“been seeing a number of posts out there from film photographers which sing the praises of the K1000”
The mad fools ah actually because a basic camera will teach you best how to get good pics. Deprived of fancy gadgets you have to be creative and many photogs probably cut their teeth on the K1000.

(1) Is the basic K-mount (as found on the K1000) an open standard? I see many companies produced lenses for the mount - did they have to license them from Pentax?

I m pretty sure Pentax offered it as an open standard but it wasnt picked up by the other big three manufacturers ( Canon, Nikon and Minolta ......Olympus were not in play with SLRs at the time. Canon were asleep at the wheel, Nikon wpuld have taken a NIH view and Minolta would have laughed as they were already ahead of the game at that time )

(2) Watching a few videos on the K1000 and it's guts, it seems complex (but nothing like a modern camera). 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?

Yes I do have experience and manufacturing the precision parts at a price that would make the whole idea feasible would require huge volume. I dont think the volume would be there and some parts may be simple impossible to manufacture again irrespective. The basic tooling may no longer exist and the K1000 may look simple, try assembling one from scratch and its hard to see. How anyone ever made any money making these things and that was with volume sales.

(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?

Hipster chic....and possibly because most people buying for reasons other than nostalgia of their youth were not around back then so are unaware its not really that great. The KX is better as a fully mechanical type camera. Better metering and full info viewfinder. Plenty of other non Pentax cameras can offer similar petformance and have more features.

(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 might consider a redux fully mechanical camera but not the K1000. I would prefer something slicker but the price would have to be low otherwise its just cheaper to buy a used camera and have it refurbed. My most expensive camera at the moment is a Nikon F. Cost to buy £300 including a nice f1.4 lens. Around £100 to have lens and body serviced and its a beauty and lovely to work with. So would I pay more than that for a new K1000 ? Nada.
So for me it would have to roll in at around no more than £500 or else I may as well buy a Nikon FM3A.
07-19-2020, 03:31 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by Astro-Baby Quote
I m pretty sure Pentax offered it as an open standard but it wasnt picked up by the other big three manufacturers ( Canon, Nikon and Minolta ......Olympus were not in play with SLRs at the time. Canon were asleep at the wheel, Nikon wpuld have taken a NIH view and Minolta would have laughed as they were already ahead of the game at that time )
Nikon already had a bayonet mount, the F, from 1957. Minolta followed with their bayonet mount from 1958. Canon introduced their FD bayonet mount in 1972 and Olympus theirs about the same time. It was Pentax who were asleep at the wheel, clinging to the M42 screw mount through this time. The Pentax K bayonet mount did not follow until 1975, and there was no good reason for the other big makers to change horses at that point, especially as Nikon were successfully carving out the professional market by then.

Nikon and Pentax have been faithful to their basic original mounts up to the present day., even with the addition of auto-focus and electronics. Minolta, Olympus and Canon on the other hand all changed mounts as time went on, to the annoyance of their users.

As I said earlier, the K-mount was an open standard, with no royalties needing to be paid to Pentax. A large number of other camera makers adopted it during the film era. Most of them were, to be honest, in the second division - such as Cosina, Petri, Miranda etc.

Last edited by Lord Lucan; 07-19-2020 at 03:34 PM. Reason: Clarity
07-19-2020, 03:46 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Eagle94VT's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 291
Reflex: Bringing back the analogue SLR camera by REFLEX ? Kickstarter

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. They are still slowly working on it as far as I know. I’ll buy it if it ever comes to market.
07-19-2020, 03:48 PM   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
Think it's easy to bring a film camera to market? Check out the Reflex Kickstarter vaporware.
07-19-2020, 04:47 PM - 1 Like   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,183
I’ve never owned a K1000, but I still have my Spotmatic-F and the others that superseded it (ESII and K2DMD). From what I gather, the KM was basically a SP-F with a K-mount, while the K1000 took out the self-timer and DoF preview. Aside from nostalgia, I can’t for the life of me see the attraction of a K1000, let alone a modern variant.

If I’m correct, part of the reason for the lower cost of the K1000 was that much of the interior workings was carried over from previous M42 cameras, although I understand there were detail changes as models progressed. Most of the mechanical components could be easily reverse-engineered and reproduced using CNC machine tools or one variety or another, although they wouldn’t necessarily be cheaper than using the technologies of the past, at the time, as a result of scale differences.

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.
07-19-2020, 05:42 PM   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Wichita, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,509
Take what I write here with big grains of salt as I have not handled nearly the amount of film cameras that many others here have. In 2020 I would think that the K1000 isn't worth trying to copy. I would instead try to build a mash-up of the Chinon CE-4/4S/5 and the Ricoh XR7. The Chinon's for the general feel of the thing, the film wind and rewind cranks and how they feel and how the film always has a little tension on it as you go through the roll, the weight/size combination, those sorts of things. Also the LED light meter display and the manual exposure speeds of the -5 would be my preference. The XR7 for the timed on switch, exposure compensation (instead of just playing with the ISO), "self" timed function and how the timer light works.


Electronic shutters make more sense today, to me, and I would imagine getting a light meter more accurate in low light is easier today vs. the early '80's. I can't imagine trying to do this with an all-mechanical setup like a K1000.
07-19-2020, 06:03 PM   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
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?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bodies, film, k-mount, k1000, pentax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tokina, king of badge engineering Mistral75 Photographic Industry and Professionals 15 01-17-2020 02:01 PM
Reverse Engineering Challenge victormeldrew Photographic Technique 18 03-01-2017 06:39 AM
Flucard hacking / reverse engineering tempelorg Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 52 11-24-2016 04:54 PM
Reverse reverse engineering? Stickler Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 10-16-2015 01:37 PM
Chinese reverse engineering? ve2vfd General Talk 35 05-29-2009 05:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top