[Ontarian50]

Well, I think a new Pentax film SLR would be a great idea. I'd be right in line to buy.

Of course, just like with any new or different idea, there's always a peanut gallery ready to pounce and explain all the reasons why it can't work and it would be stupid to even try. The only thing dumber would be if Kodak were to bring back color slide fim, har har! Oh, wait. . . *Ektachrome*

Yeah, I don't quite get the interest in resurrected slide film. It's not like Kodak's going to bring back the Carousel projectors to go along with it. While we can all recall our preferences for a particular slide film, or negative film, over another, most of these differences in colour balance, saturation, etc, can be minimized in the scanning and processing these days. The main reason I was a slide film fan when I first got serious about photography was that my images came back as I intended them. If I went for some underexposure, the lab couldn't brighten it up in printing. If I used a light blue filter for a cooler image, the lab couldn't warm it up in printing. But these benefits disappear when you stuff your negative or slide into the scanner.

And as for the comment that the webverse wants the K1000 back at $200 or so, I might point out that's what the pre-China K1000s cost back in 1980. By the time they were discontinued in 1998 or so, the Chinese ones were selling for $499 locally. Reverse adjusting for inflation, a $200 K1000 today should have cost about $80 back in 1980.

If we're going to dream, I'd like Ricoh to buy up the design for the Contax S2 and bring it back with a K-mount on it.

[Photos-by-Chas]

I think Pentax should shrink their lineup and drop the low end K-70. They should have the 645Z, K-1II, the K-3III and the KP. Future cameras and lenses should be of the highest quality.

There are people who prefer to be a bit more frugal and buy a lower priced camera that has nearly all the same bells and whistles of higher priced cameras. I personally do not need or want all that is in or on a K1, nor do I really want or need a full frame. And according to the comparison of the K70 to the KP, the K70 was slightly preferred to the KP with the exception that there was a slightly better image quality from the KP. And for many, myself included, the image quality difference is so minor that I'd stay with the K70.

[TwoUptons]

Just wondering; Did Pentax ever develop a (non-automatic) camera with a polaroid back? That would seem fun as well. I saw that there are people who are trying to modify or develop instant (and Instax-)backs for Hasselblad but a Pentax with such a contraption would be great.

Pentax didn't develop them, but there were Polaroid backs for the LX, MX, and I think the ME family (I think any of them with removable backs).
I'm trying to remember what used to be available in the order books...
In later generations, I think Polaroid backs were ostensibly available for the SF1 and PZ1, but I only remember those as a special order mention... never saw one...

The problem was that a 35mm frame was tiny, so they weren't terribly useful.

The 645 and 67 had backs as well. The 645 one had a weird optical block in it that made the photos less sharp, but it was still fine for checking lighting and exposure.

Also, as I recall in the US in the late 1990s, the K1000 was about $200 new.
I think about $279 got you one with a 35-80 Sigma...
I paid $229 for mine in 1982 with two lenses, a flash, and a bag...

-Eric

[Lord Lucan]

I recall in the US in the late 1990s, the K1000 was about $200 new.I think about $279 got you one with a 35-80 Sigma...I paid $229 for mine in 1982 with two lenses, a flash, and a bag...

In the UK, the K1000 with an A-Series f2 50mm was £149.90 in Jessops' price list of October 1988. Jessops is a UK high street dealer. That would be £405 in today's prices (or $550). Of course, the R&D costs of the K1000 had long been recovered by then - it was basically a 1960's design (a Spotmatic) with a 1970's makeover. OTOH, Pentax (or its dealers) were by then IMHO exploiting the K1000 with a captive market, being on the recommendation list of art schools for their students for decades.

Extract from Jessops' Price List, 4 October 1988

---

Last edited by Lord Lucan; 12-04-2020 at 03:40 PM. Reason: Format

[ChrisPlatt]

Despite the recent resurgence of popularity of film, IMO film cameras will remain a niche market.
One day perhaps some enterprising Chinese manufacturer might consider new production - at consumer prices - profitable enough.

As an example note the recent introduction of some lower priced Leica rangefinder M-mount lenses from China.

It's nice to dream, but if it ever happens your new film camera won't be a Pentax...

Chris

[Reciprocity]

Pentax didn't develop them, but there were Polaroid backs for the LX, MX, and I think the ME family (I think any of them with removable backs).
I'm trying to remember what used to be available in the order books...
In later generations, I think Polaroid backs were ostensibly available for the SF1 and PZ1, but I only remember those as a special order mention... never saw one...

The problem was that a 35mm frame was tiny, so they weren't terribly useful.

The 645 and 67 had backs as well. The 645 one had a weird optical block in it that made the photos less sharp, but it was still fine for checking lighting and exposure.

Also, as I recall in the US in the late 1990s, the K1000 was about $200 new.
I think about $279 got you one with a 35-80 Sigma...
I paid $229 for mine in 1982 with two lenses, a flash, and a bag...

-Eric

Interesting to know the LX had the possibility of a polaroid back. But indeed, the medium formats are more useful when it comes to instant film.

[Ontarian50]

Interesting to know the LX had the possibility of a polaroid back. But indeed, the medium formats are more useful when it comes to instant film.

Uh, not really. When I had my Hasselblad a few years ago, I came across a Polaroid back for it. Suddenly inspired to do something great with it, I got some of the Fuji peel-apart film for it (FP-100C) still available at the time, and took it on a short photo safari in a local park.

Yeah, the back is big, and the film has an image area of about 72x94mm, but I somehow failed to realize that the film gate of a 'Blad is about 55x55mm. For a final print, that's pretty darned tiny, and my plans to "do something" with the images amounted to nothing.

I suppose some avant garde photographer could (and probably has) take one of the tiny images, and frame it inside a giant 24x36 inch frame and hang it in a gallery, forcing the viewer to get really close and personal to the work to see what has been photographed, and get their mind blown by the sense of scale that implies (glass of gallery champagne in hand, of course).

Polaroid backs for medium format and 35mm cameras were never really intended to be anything other than exposure and lighting checkers for commercial photographers. You looked at the instant image with a magnifier to be sure all was good, before putting the real film into the camera. Even if it cost a couple of bucks, the Polaroid got tossed in the trash, but was worth it to make sure you didn't have to come back and re-shoot the location because you screwed something up in the lighting.

Many of the ones custom built for 35mm bodies used a short fiber optic stack to pipe the film plane image a few millimeters back to the film pack. This, of course, means the image was actually just a cluster of pixels with the resolution of the fibers. Not high quality, and not intended for anything other than exposure checking.

---

Last edited by Ontarian50; 12-05-2020 at 02:33 PM.

[TwoUptons]

Interesting to know the LX had the possibility of a polaroid back. But indeed, the medium formats are more useful when it comes to instant film.

I think if I had been a studio guy, I would have been tempted to use a Polaroid camera (the nice one, with interchangeable lenses) instead of a back to check lighting.
That would have used the whole frame of the film and even allowed for black and white Polaroid negatives (was that 665 or 664 film?)

Then I could have used it for event photography if I was bored or needed a few quick bucks...

-Eric

[womble]

I think if I had been a studio guy, I would have been tempted to use a Polaroid camera (the nice one, with interchangeable lenses) instead of a back to check lighting.
That would have used the whole frame of the film and even allowed for black and white Polaroid negatives (was that 665 or 664 film?)

Then I could have used it for event photography if I was bored or needed a few quick bucks...

-Eric

A bit off topic now... I regret not getting into large format photography until after the demise of Polaroid Type 55 film.

[Reciprocity]

I think if I had been a studio guy, I would have been tempted to use a Polaroid camera (the nice one, with interchangeable lenses) instead of a back to check lighting.
That would have used the whole frame of the film and even allowed for black and white Polaroid negatives (was that 665 or 664 film?)

Then I could have used it for event photography if I was bored or needed a few quick bucks...

-Eric

What is the 'nice one'? A Pathfinder perhaps? Because I noticed that Kubrick (the movie director) used it on the set of '2001'. But the lens didn't seem very interchangeable?

[TwoUptons]

What is the 'nice one'? A Pathfinder perhaps? Because I noticed that Kubrick (the movie director) used it on the set of '2001'. But the lens didn't seem very interchangeable?

Oh, sorry, the Polaroid 600 SE, which used the pull-and-peel film, not 600 film...
Polaroid 600/600 SE - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

It’s a funny looking thing...

-Eric

[jeallen01]

Had a Polaroid SX-70 for work stuff in the early 1980's - very useful, and easy, for rapidly showing the management what was "very wrong" (and there was a lot!) in terms of safety with some of the very expensive CT scanning kit that we were building. OTOH it was very expensive on film, and so I used 35mm for most such jobs.

Kinda "hankered" after another one for personal use for a time after that, but "life moves on" and modern kit is so much better all-around that I don't now have that "hankering" - nevertheless "fond memories" of that "machine" do still "pop up" from time to time.

[Reciprocity]

Oh, sorry, the Polaroid 600 SE, which used the pull-and-peel film, not 600 film...
Polaroid 600/600 SE - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

It’s a funny looking thing...

-Eric

Indeed, with Mamiya lenses apparently. Very cool. I want one.

[david94903]

There are people who prefer to be a bit more frugal and buy a lower priced camera that has nearly all the same bells and whistles of higher priced cameras.

This is a great point.

[Reciprocity]

This is a great point.

Indeed.