Solid, reliable, flexible, accepts the great Pentax lenses
Written: Jan 28 '07
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Ease of Use: |
 |
|
| Durability: |
 |
|
| Battery Life: |
|
|
| Photo Quality: |
|
|
|
Pros: Super solid construction, inexpensive, accepts top quality Pentax optic, forces quick learning of photography
Cons: Also accepts some really junky aftermarket optics, no self-timer or mirror lock-up.
The Bottom Line: If you want to learn the technicalities of photography or if you know them and want a solid, simple camera, this is the way to go. Not for lazy people!
|
|
|
| jzorns's Full Review: Pentax K1000 35mm Film Camera |
About 12 years ago, I bought a brand new Pentax K1000SE with the Pentax 50mm f/2 lens for my first serious camera. Before that, I only had point & shoot cameras.
Boy, was it ever a shock to see the quality of the images that came out of this camera! All that time I had been using point & shoots and the framing was never quite right, I assumed it was my fault. Magically, with this camera, everything was just as I had envisioned it. No more cut-off heads, or more stuff included in the frame than I had planned. The second big shock was the difference in image quality. Oh my god does lens quality make a difference. The quality of the lenses in point & shoot cameras is generally not very good; even the nice ones. With the Pentax 50mm lens, the pictures were 200% sharper, and I could take pictures in lower light without a flash, especially with 400 or 800 speed film. Point & shoot cameras produce images that are good enough for decent 4x6 prints, because that is most peoples' goal. But even in 4x6 prints, I could tell the difference.
Another nice thing about this camera is that, except for the light meter, it is 100% mechanical. This means that if the light meter battery dies, I am not necessarily done shooting. I can still shoot with flash, at 1/60s and if I care to take an educated guess at the exposure, I can do that as well. Extremely cold temperatures have very little effect.
But all of the above are not the reasons for this camera's long-standing success. This was designed in the 60s or 70s as a starter SLR (single lens reflex) camera. A first "serious" camera. In those days, one could buy an inexpensive rangefinder camera with a fixed lens that would also take decent pictures, but the lens was fixed and there was still parallax error. (error between the viewfinder and what is actually captured on film) With an SLR, since you're looking through the same lens that takes the picture via a mirror, there is no parallax error. Also, there is the ability to change lenses. If I want to shoot a tall building and I can't back up any further, I simply mount a 28mm wide angle lens. If I want to get close enough to shoot a tightly-cropped bird photo, I mount a 300mm telephoto zoom lens.
Last and certainly not least is that this camera forces you to use full manual control. It forces you to adjust the exposure manually for each and every shot. The idea is that you learn the difference that different apertures and shutter speeds make in your photography. A wider aperture (lower f-stop) gives a shallower depth-of-field, which is usually good for portraits. A smaller aperture gives a longer depth-of-field (or focus) which is good for landscapes, where you want everything in focus. Slower shutter speeds can be used to show motion blur; while faster shutter speeds can stop fast action.
Although digital is the way of the future, there are several important advantages to manual film cameras like this:
1) Since you don't see your pictures until later, and since each picture costs money, these cameras force you to THINK about your picture before you take it. Your skills develop faster with a film camera, as does your sense of composition.
2) They are an inexpensive way to get top-quality enlargements. A common 6-10 MP digital camera will not make as good of a poster print as a humble 35mm SLR can. I have a 20x30" size print in my bedroom of a 427 Cobra that I shot with a simple manual SLR on ISO 25 film. As much as I love my digital SLR, it cannot compete in this league, especially not for the money.
Many people who are reading this review are no doubt students who are or will be enrolled in a photography class. Yes, this is the ideal camera. It is better than the newer Pentax ZX-M, because it is all mechanical, and with a solid, cast-metal body. It is better than the equivalent Ricohs. It is not QUITE as good as the Nikon FM and FM2, but better than the Nikon FM-10. (which was not even designed by Nikon) It is not quite as nice as the Canon F-1, but a lot cheaper. Not quite as good as the Olympus OM1n, but the Olympus uses an obsolete and now unavailable mercury battery.
The only feature this camera doesn't have that I would have liked to have is a self timer. If you want to use this as a family camera, either count yourself out of any family pictures or buy a very long cable release, hehehe.
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 230
This Camera is a Good Choice if You Want Something... Solid Enough for a Professional
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
jzorns
|
|
Reviews written: 46
Trusted by: 1 member
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.