Pentax K1000
Posted 18/07/2013 - 18:21
Link
Horst wrote:
You could either use the existing mount with all the contacts and just don't internally connect the contacts or just eliminate the contacts altogether.
You could use all the existing lenses if you copy the open aperture metering system used from the K1000 onwards. If you want to use screw lenses, you just have to do what you do now, set the lens to manual and use an adaptor. Ok, the purists may have a problem with some of the current lenses, only made for the APS sensor size. However Pentax could also release a new set of lenses to fit the new and of course existing earlier cameras.
The lens could have all the contacts, but they are just not used.
I would say, this could be an interesting camera, as long as it kept the TTL metering and maybe the TTL flash.
Regards, Horst
I'm sorry, I obviously didn't make myself clear. Quote:
Then you've got to start making what is now a non standard version of the mount.
Why would you have to use a non standard mount?Then you've got to start making what is now a non standard version of the mount.
You could either use the existing mount with all the contacts and just don't internally connect the contacts or just eliminate the contacts altogether.
You could use all the existing lenses if you copy the open aperture metering system used from the K1000 onwards. If you want to use screw lenses, you just have to do what you do now, set the lens to manual and use an adaptor. Ok, the purists may have a problem with some of the current lenses, only made for the APS sensor size. However Pentax could also release a new set of lenses to fit the new and of course existing earlier cameras.
The lens could have all the contacts, but they are just not used.
I would say, this could be an interesting camera, as long as it kept the TTL metering and maybe the TTL flash.
Regards, Horst
What I meant was, the current standard version of the K mount, ie that mount which is fitted to all the cameras in the current range, doesn't have the necessary mechanical couplers to make use of an apperture ring.
In order to do open apperture metering with M series lenses and earlier, the proposed camera would have to have an "old style" non-crippled K mount. That would mean re-tooling to produce that mount specifically for this one camera body.
If doing so was cheap and easy, Pentax would have done it by now and shut all of us who want to use M series glass on our DSLRs up.
Since the people who want to use M series glass on a K5 II are also the people who would consider buying this "Digital MX", if they wont do it for us to make us happier with a mass market model, they certainly wont do it to make the same people buy a niche market model unless the price was very much in their favour.
you don't have to be mad to post here
but it does help
but it does help
Posted 18/07/2013 - 23:09
Link
DaveHolmes wrote:
I've been very close to getting aK1000 for a couple of years... I'm currently playing with the MX (K5 is all packed away)...
Is the viewfinder in the K1000 similar to that of the MX?
Would be nice to have a 'slightly' larger body...
Hi Dave,I've been very close to getting aK1000 for a couple of years... I'm currently playing with the MX (K5 is all packed away)...
Is the viewfinder in the K1000 similar to that of the MX?
Would be nice to have a 'slightly' larger body...
Obviously it's subjective, to me they're similar (but I wear glasses) and can't see totally to the corners of either. The biggest differences are likely to be the focus screens, the K1000 only has a centre mirco-prism spot with no spit image (the K1000 SE - appears to be a US model has a split-image). The 'finder surrounds are different (smaller SP/'K' style accessory fitting).
I prefer the K1000 for its larger size and have a much more carefree attitude to it than an MX. I also prefer the needle metering except in dim lighting - it's easier to see how far off 'level' you are at a glance.
John.
Posted 18/07/2013 - 23:20
Link
Mongoose wrote:
Since the people who want to use M series glass on a K5 II are also the people who would consider buying this "Digital MX", if they wont do it for us to make us happier with a mass market model, they certainly wont do it to make the same people buy a niche market model unless the price was very much in their favour.
The whole concept of a 'digital MX' wouldn't work. By the time you've got the sensor (any size) and the processing engine etc., you've got everything you need for most of the 'K5' functionality. Cost savings are going to be very low (or even negative if you have to rework generic software). As a niche product it wouldn't work.Since the people who want to use M series glass on a K5 II are also the people who would consider buying this "Digital MX", if they wont do it for us to make us happier with a mass market model, they certainly wont do it to make the same people buy a niche market model unless the price was very much in their favour.
A better idea would be to provide analogue 'camera profiles' giving a choice of cameras/functionality, which would keep it a mainstream product - vital really.
John.
Posted 19/07/2013 - 00:16
Link
John, my point exactly.
you don't have to be mad to post here
but it does help
but it does help
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1174 posts
15 years
Bradford
Is the viewfinder in the K1000 similar to that of the MX?
Would be nice to have a 'slightly' larger body...
Digital:
Pentax K5- Vivitar 19mm 3.8; FA35mm f2; D-Xenon 100mm macro f2.8; DA50-200mm WR...
Flash:
Yongnuo YN-560; Vivitar 285HV; Cactus V4 triggers...
Film:
Pentax-MX & M50mm f1.4; Spottie & 55mm f1.8; MG & M40mm 2.8...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/daveholmesphotos/