Options
Why does nobody make a digital K1000?
jdorseydesign
Registered Users Posts: 161 Major grins
There's a certain class of all manual film SLR cameras that were and are used in photography courses by students because they are manual only cameras. I have a Promaster 2500PK (Nikon FM body with a Pentax K mount). I love that I have to control aperture, shutter and ISO via dials on the camera. There's no AUTO mode, there's no AUTO focus, just a nice big focusing screen. The camera is also TINY compared to my relatively small Nikon D40x. And it has a nice 50mm f/1.9 lens. The Pentax K1000 seems to be the favorite of this style of film camera. Nikon even still sells the FM10, which is a brand new style of film SLR like this.
My question is, why doesn't someone make a digital SLR like this? Imagine a DSLR with ONLY manual controls, I would buy this in a heartbeat.
Also, I would love to have a DSLR that was as small as one of these manual only cameras.
Would it be possible to "hack in" a digital sensor into one of the old K1000 bodies?
My question is, why doesn't someone make a digital SLR like this? Imagine a DSLR with ONLY manual controls, I would buy this in a heartbeat.
Also, I would love to have a DSLR that was as small as one of these manual only cameras.
Would it be possible to "hack in" a digital sensor into one of the old K1000 bodies?
0
Comments
As far as I'm concerned, I have that every time I put my Canon digital SLR dial on "M" and switch the lens focus to "Manual".
There are a couple reasons they don't make a digital K1000. First, the market would be limited. Specs sell. Even before digital, K1000 sales fell and fell, and they moved manufacturing out of Japan and the bodies went from metal to plastic. The price went up, too; I got my K1000 for $100 new but they cost more when the line died. Finally they stopped making them, because increased in-body automation was completely changing the marketing game for film SLRs. Everyone wants the advantages that digital brings, and that means bells and whistles.
The second reason is you'll never really get back there, to that state of purity. The K1000 can be operated without a battery. With digital that is impossible. Also, where do you draw the line for manual? Should it only shoot raw, so that you are forced to do the raw development in software before you can get a JPEG out of it? Should the metering system be dumbed down to the simple full scene averaged metering of the K1000, instead of today's metering systems that actually pay attention to composition? Should it have no preview LCD so that you can't see your pictures until you develop the raw files? A camera like that might actually be cool to try, but again it's a question of how many would sell in this features-oriented marketplace.
I just took my K1000 out of the closet for a side by side comparison. My Canon Rebel digital is actually shorter, narrower, and lighter than the K1000. Nikon entry-level digitals are similarly sized. If you picked up a Micro Four Thirds interchangeable lens camera, it would be significantly smaller than a K1000.
On a side note if you buy a used entry level digital, like something 4-5 years old, you get simpler tech for a price point not too far above the K1000, just a couple hundred dollars, in a compact body. Put a simple fast prime on it, turn the dial to manual, and there you go. Another thing you can do is put in an old memory card, like 256MB, so that you have to conserve shots and shoot thoughtfully as with film rolls. That's how I use my old Rebel sometimes, now that it isn't worth much money.
Many years ago a company said they were going to make a digital back for film SLRs. Everybody waited and waited and nothing ever came of it. Speculation is that they could not make a back that could keep up with the rapid advances in digital SLRs, while being available in enough variations to cover different bodies, while still being priced cheaper than just going out and buying a new digital SLR. Here is one of the many threads talking about it at the time.
http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/008cxN
I seriously don't mean to be negative about your wish, in fact it would be really cool to see someone give it a try. But having relied on both the K1000 and digital SLRs, I am quite satisfied putting my small and light digital into manual mode. I also have a Canon 7D and I also put that into manual when needed, and it's even more satisfying than the K1000 because all of the other tech the 7D is armed with helps me nail manual exposure shots better than ever.
The K100D was/is a pretty feature simple model compared to the other manufacturer's offerings at the time and it had a very aggressive price point. I'm sure that some film Pentax users did use that model as a transitional camera to digital. (I'm sure that many other Pentax users chose other Pentax digital SLRs as well.)
I agree with the others here that there would be an "extremely" limited market for a manual only digital camera body. I do know of some photography classes where the students are only allowed to shoot Manual mode to RAW files and the RAW file's EXIF will show that Manual mode was used. Any other file format or mode of operation and the submission is rejected. Students don't usually mess with the controls when they know the consequences.
For those students who bought a camera just for a photography class with the above restrictions, most are relieved after the class completes and they can explore the other "creative" modes with some automation.
For manual focus I'm afraid I'm just not happy with the vast majority of viewfinder screens, magnifications and sizes. The viewfinder is either too small, lacks either split-prism or micro-prism or it's too dim to be useful. I'm happy to concede that a modern AF system, or manual focus with AF confirmation, is just much faster and more accurate than the viewfinders of yore.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Panasonic/Leica had a camera close to what you are asking for, it had auto modes but also physical dials like the FM for shutter speed/aperture.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcl1/
Otherwise your options are the fixed lens Fuji X100, or a Leica digital range finder.
I think this is the main reason I feel manual focus is hardly worth the effort--at least TTL. Live view makes it easier for those camera bodies able to provide that feature--but then live view falls apart in any kind of light.
I think this is my #1 problem with my current DSLR. When I started shooting with my Promaster 35mm and manual focus, I realized the power of the large focusing screen with the split prism. I go back to my D40x and I'm really disappointed. Of course, my next body will be a D90 or D7000, so I'll get a larger viewfinder, but I still really wish it had that split prism focusing thing.
I have a question for those who use rangefinders... if you swap lenses on a rangefinder, how do you know your field of view in the viewfinder has changed? I've never shot with one, so I have no idea how this works.
If you really want to start a fight, ask about the 'crippled' mount the recent digital bodies have that doesn't recognize aperture settings on K or M series lenses, and require hitting the green button for stop-down metering. (With A lenses you run manual or AV thru the body, not the aperture ring).
At one point I had a K1000, ME, and SuperProgram (as well as my K200D). Of the three film cameras, I kept the SuperProgram, mostly for ergonomics. The K1000 was the first to go - why am I sitting here watching a needle bounce around, when the ME in Av mode accomplishes exactly what I want?
If I want that feeling again I put the 35mm F2.8 on my K200D, set the ISO to 400, and walk around the neighborhood.
There is a certain clamoring for the (supposedly pending) pentax EVIL offering to be be a bare-bones, old-school camera. While a small portion of the enthusiast set, with a plethora of glass in the cabinet, would love that, I'm not sure it would sell. More to the point, until EVFs on EVIL cameras get a lot better, facilitating manual focus, I really don't see the appeal.
Already have people swapping split-prism screens into their DSLRs, so there are some manual focus folks out there, just not sure there are enough. I'd just like live view and an articulating screen for manual focus during macro shooting.
Interchangeable lens Rangefinder cameras have 2 problems related to image preview and image composition:
- Adjusting for different FOV when you change the lens.
- Accounting for parallax since the viewing lens is different than the taking lens.
Each manufacturer has their own solutions (or not) to the above problems, with varying degrees of success.For adjusting to different FOVs the 3 approaches that I have seen used:
- A mask that fits over the primary viewfinder lens for telephoto lenses, with no provision for wide-angle lenses.
- A seperate lens that fits over the primary viewfinder lens and provides an approximation of the FOV, sometimes used to approximate several lenses.
- A seperate viewfinder that fits into the camera shoe, or (I believe I saw) attaches to the underside of the camera.
For parallax it's a bit trickier still and I can only recall one camera that had a true parallax deviation cam and that only worked for standard focal length lenses. Some viewfinder cameras also use a brightline overlay that can move and help accomodate closer subject matter.Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I guess the main advantages would be that it is cheap, looks like an old film camera, and totally manual for like students and stuff.
At the risk of 'getting you started', you seriously carry a light meter everywhere?
I think I used aperture priority once
I do. But not always
The reasons are different but metering "by some guy who's not a photographer" isn't one of them. About 99% of the time, the camera's meter is just fine.