Pentax ZX-M vs. K1000?
Derrick Low
Jim (em...@server.123) wrote:
: How does the Pentax ZX-M compare to the Pentax K1000?
:
: Is it as rugged and reliable? What's different about it? Will it
: work without a battery? Does it have mirror lockup, TTL flash, etc?
:
: I'm looking for an inexpensive camera to learn the basics. For some
: reason, this one is cheaper than the K1000's I've seen.
My brother has a K-1000 & I've played with the ZX-M at the store.
The ZX-M will probably be tough enough for most people, but the
K-1000, being an all metal, fully mechanical body, is obviously going
to be more rugged. Also, because of this difference (unlike the K-1000
the ZX-M is quite electronics-dependent) the K-1000 can function
without a battery, which the ZX-M cannot. Again, not being able to use
a battery is not as big a problem as many people make it out to
be. It's nice, of course (Recenlty, my FE's batteries died while I was
in Colorado with my brother and sister. I was limited to one shutter
speed, but for the most part, I wasn't too badly crippled by this
handicap), but if you keep spare batteries with you, it should not be
a problem. Besides, with the K-1000, you need a battery for the meter
anyway.
On the other hand, while the K-1000 may be more rugged and reliable,
the ZX-M offers quite a lot of benefits as well. First, it is *MUCH*
lighter and smaller than that beast of a camera, the K-1000. (I
compared the ZX-M w/ lens to my Nikon Series E 50mm lens--quite a
small lens--and the ZX-M w/ lens combo was just about the same weight
as my one, manual focus lens.) Further, AFAIK, the ZX-M gives you TTL
flash, unlike the K-1000. You also have a built-in autowinder, that
spiffy DX thing that sets the film speed for you, and three modes of
autoexposure. The viewfinder gives you much more useful information,
and is lighted, so you can see it in the dark. Further, you have DOF
preview, two-segment (however useful that is) matrix metering, and an
exposure compensation dial.
If I had to choose between these two, I would go with the ZX-M,
probably. If nothing else, it's cheap--you can get a new one for
about the same price as a used K-1000 with a used, 50mm lens. But
before you buy, if you are not set on getting a Pentax, you might want
to check out some of the old manual Nikon bodies. In particular, the
FE (which I have), FM, FG, FE-2 (considered one of the very *BEST*
manual focus bodies ever made), the FM-2 (still in production), or the
FA. The FE, FM, and FG are probably the only ones on that list that
can be had for prices similar to the K-1000 or ZX-M, though; for the
FE-2, FM-2 and FA, you'll have to spend about twice as much.
A lot of people think Nikon is a lot more expensive than other brands,
but when you look at things on a bigger scale, Nikon lenses really
aren't any more expensive than Canon, Minolta or Pentax
lenses. (Actually, I think this is the general stereotype because
Nikon's cheap stuff is more expensive, but their expensive lenses tend
to cost less than competing ones--the 80-200/2.8 is a great example.)
Also, check out what other brands have to offer. I don't like the
Canon AE-1 because of its interface, but it's supposed to be a pretty
good first-step into the world of SLRs as well. Minolta's X-700 is
supposed to be a pretty good camera, but I don't know much about
it. The disadvantage to these other brands when compared to Nikon and
(to a lesser extent) Pentax, though, is that they carry two different
systems--manual and autofocus. If you buy an AE-1, you cannot share
lenses with an A2E that you may later buy. On the other hand, if you
buy an FG, you can share your lenses with an N90s which you might buy
a few years down the road.
hope that helps,
-dl
--
Derrick Low
der...@sonic.net
ERNReed
>Jim (em...@server.123) wrote:
>: How does the Pentax ZX-M compare to the Pentax K1000?
>:
>: Is it as rugged and reliable? What's different about it? Will it
>: work without a battery? Does it have mirror lockup, TTL flash, etc?
>:
>: I'm looking for an inexpensive camera to learn the basics. For
>some
>: reason, this one is cheaper than the K1000's I've seen.
>The ZX-M will probably be tough enough for most people, but the
>K-1000, being an all metal, fully mechanical body, is obviously going
>to be more rugged. Also, because of this difference (unlike the K-1000
>the ZX-M is quite electronics-dependent) the K-1000 can function
>without a battery, which the ZX-M
>cannot. Again, not being able to use
>a battery is not as big a problem as many people make it out to
>be.
The ZX-M, like the rest of the ZX series, can take an optional AA battery pack
so that you can run the camera off AA batteries instead of the CR2 lithiums.
>Further, AFAIK, the ZX-M gives you TTL
>flash, unlike the K-1000.
I don't think it does -- although it does have a mode called Programmed Auto
Flash.
>You also have a built-in autowinder, that
>spiffy DX thing that sets the film speed for you,
(and can be overridden if necessary -- very useful)
>and three modes of
>autoexposure. The viewfinder gives you much more useful information,
>and is lighted, so you can see it in the dark. Further, you have DOF
>preview, two-segment (however useful that is) matrix metering, and an
>exposure compensation dial.
All of these, in my opinion, very useful features on a learning camera.
>Also, check out what other brands have to offer.
(Well, I'm biased -- I'd say, you're already looking at Pentaxes; you need look
no further! :-)
Nikon comments snipped because I don't know anything useful to add to them.
> Minolta's X-700 is
>supposed to be a pretty good camera, but I don't know much about
>it.
It is a nice camera. I have a friend who uses this model. It also has DOF
preview; it has TTL flash; it has been in production for many years so is
obviously successful. I believe it can take a winder. It's a bit heavy to my
hands (again, I'm used to Pentaxes). Its main drawback, as noted, is that
Minolta orphaned the manual-focus lenses when introducing autofocus.
Also, if while looking for a used K1000 you happened upon a used MX or KX, I'd
recommend either as a learning camera over the K1000. Like the K1000, they're
all-mechanical (only using the battery for the meter.) They are rugged. They
show the shutter speeds and aperture in the viewfinder. They have
depth-of-field preview. And the KX has mirror lock-up.
But if I were to choose between the K1000 and the ZX-M as something to learn
with, I'd pick the ZX-M. It has more features, it's newer, and as you yourself
noted, it's also priced lower.
Hope this helps.
Olli Orkoneva
Derrick Low wrote:
> Further, AFAIK, the ZX-M gives you TTL
> flash, unlike the K-1000.
According to Pentax discussion group, it does not give the TTL flash.
> Further, you have DOF
> preview, two-segment (however useful that is) matrix metering, and an
> exposure compensation dial.
The two-segment matrix metering has surprised every magazinetester with its accuracy. I think it is useful. However,
whatever the
metering system is, you should learn to know how it works. The
multi-segment metering will behave unexpectedly, if you treat it
as center-weighted.
With older manual lenses without the A-setting, the metering iscenter-weighted.
Olli
--
Olli Orkoneva email: orkoneva-at-iuakk.fi
TALOTEKNIIKKA, VAPA tel. +358-9-6123011
Lönnrotinkatu 4 B mob. +358-500-514154
00120 Helsinki, FINLAND telefax +358-9-6123113
www: http://www.iuakk.fi/~orkoneva/olli/gallery.htm
private: Metsätorpantie 2 D 10, 02430 Masala, FINLAND, +358-9-2977237
Rishi Ghosh
Jim (em...@server.123) writes:
> How does the Pentax ZX-M compare to the Pentax K1000?
>
> Is it as rugged and reliable? What's different about it? Will it
> work without a battery? Does it have mirror lockup, TTL flash, etc?
>
> I'm looking for an inexpensive camera to learn the basics. For some
> reason, this one is cheaper than the K1000's I've seen.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
Get the K1000. Its a much stronger (all metal) as opposed to
all plastic in the ZX-M. ZX-M also needs a battery to work the
motorized film winder (unlike K1000 which only needs a button
battery for the meter) ZX-m does not have mirror lockup (only found
on professional cameras and expensive) and doesn't have TTL (I think).
The K1000 has withstood the test of time and will never go out
of date. Its an excellent backup body for any other Pentax
camera you may decide to buy later on and it can even use
all of the new lenses. Just listen to the shutter sound difference
of the K1000 and ZX-m (a nice solid sound VS a weak ker-plink!)-
that shows the difference in quality. They don't make thinks
like they used to! Thats why the K1000 is more expensive than
the ZX-M!
Bozhidar Dimitrov
: > Is it as rugged and reliable? What's different about it? Will it
: > work without a battery? Does it have mirror lockup, TTL flash, etc?
The ZX-M is probably not quite as reliable as the K1000. It feels very
"plasticky" too. It does have many more features that may be worth
choosing it over the K1000. You can see my Web site for the features of
both cameras. http://www.cs.purdue.edu/~bdd/Pentax/
Rishi Ghosh (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: Get the K1000. Its a much stronger (all metal) as opposed to
: all plastic in the ZX-M. ZX-M also needs a battery to work the
: motorized film winder (unlike K1000 which only needs a button
: battery for the meter) ZX-m does not have mirror lockup (only found
: on professional cameras and expensive) and doesn't have TTL (I think).
: The K1000 has withstood the test of time and will never go out
: of date. Its an excellent backup body for any other Pentax
: camera you may decide to buy later on and it can even use
: all of the new lenses. Just listen to the shutter sound difference
: of the K1000 and ZX-m (a nice solid sound VS a weak ker-plink!)-
: that shows the difference in quality. They don't make thinks
: like they used to! Thats why the K1000 is more expensive than
: the ZX-M!
So you can tell how good a cemera is by just hearing the sound of making an
exposure? Wow!
Are you also claiming that a heavy mirror slap is better than a well damped
one? The ZX-M has P, Tv, Av, and M operation, program flash, automatic
X sync, etc. There are features that might be well worth someone's money.
The only thing that the K1000 has over the ZX-M is the metal construction
and mechanical operation. Some of the newer K1000's are not even mostly
metal.
So, I don't agree with the above generalization. K1000 for some people,
ZX-M for others. One could learn the basics very well with both.
Cheers,
Boz Dimitrov
John Francis
In article <6l50od$g...@bolt.sonic.net>, Derrick Low <der...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Jim (em...@server.123) wrote:
>: How does the Pentax ZX-M compare to the Pentax K1000?
>:
>: work without a battery? Does it have mirror lockup, TTL flash, etc?
>: I'm looking for an inexpensive camera to learn the basics. For some
>: reason, this one is cheaper than the K1000's I've seen.
>
>
>K-1000, being an all metal, fully mechanical body, is obviously going
>to be more rugged. Also, because of this difference (unlike the K-1000
>the ZX-M is quite electronics-dependent) the K-1000 can function
>without a battery, which the ZX-M cannot. Again, not being able to use
>a battery is not as big a problem as many people make it out to
>in Colorado with my brother and sister. I was limited to one shutter
>speed, but for the most part, I wasn't too badly crippled by this
>handicap), but if you keep spare batteries with you, it should not be
>a problem. Besides, with the K-1000, you need a battery for the meter
>anyway.
It can be rather more of a problem if you are in cold conditions.
Electronic shutters become very unreliable in the cold, and batteries
don't deliver as much current (which might hamper the film advance).
>A lot of people think Nikon is a lot more expensive than other brands,
>but when you look at things on a bigger scale, Nikon lenses really
>aren't any more expensive than Canon, Minolta or Pentax
>lenses. (Actually, I think this is the general stereotype because
>Nikon's cheap stuff is more expensive, but their expensive lenses tend
>to cost less than competing ones--the 80-200/2.8 is a great example.)
But is the Nikon lens as good as the Canon/Pentax/Minolta/Olympus?
The lens you mention seems to have been criticised by several users for
exhibiting fairly severe vignetting. Not what I want in a $1000 lens.
And you have to be prepared to drop some pretty serious sums on lenses
before you overcome the price difference between, say, an N90s + back
as opposed to a PZ-1p or an A2E. Look on the bigger scale by all means,
but be sure you are looking at the whole picture.
>Also, check out what other brands have to offer. I don't like the
>Canon AE-1 because of its interface, but it's supposed to be a pretty
>good first-step into the world of SLRs as well. Minolta's X-700 is
>supposed to be a pretty good camera, but I don't know much about
>it. The disadvantage to these other brands when compared to Nikon and
>(to a lesser extent) Pentax, though, is that they carry two different
>systems--manual and autofocus. If you buy an AE-1, you cannot share
>lenses with an A2E that you may later buy. On the other hand, if you
>buy an FG, you can share your lenses with an N90s which you might buy
>a few years down the road.
Given that the original poster is asking about K-mount cameras, how is
the lens interchangeability of Pentax cameras any worse than Nikons?
Any Pentax K-mount lens can be used, unmodified, on any K-mount body
(except for the ultra-cheap ZX-50, which wil 'only' work properly with
lenses made in the last 15 years). That's not true for Nikons - some
old lenses need to be modified to work on any newer bodies. Admittedly
it's a simple modification, and it doesn't prevent them continuing to
work just fine on older bodies. But you don't have to do that with a
Pentax.
Don't get me wrong - I think Nikons are wonderful cameras. If I was
starting from scratch today an N90s paired with an older mechanical
body would make my short list (and an F5 is up there on the fantasy
shelf). Buying Nikon stuff would never be a 'wrong' decision.
But it isn't by any means the only 'right' decision, either.
--
John Francis jfra...@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-8295 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
(650)933-4692 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die.
Derrick Low
John Francis (jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com) wrote:
: In article <6l50od$g...@bolt.sonic.net>, Derrick Low <der...@sonic.net> wrote:
: It can be rather more of a problem if you are in cold conditions.
: Electronic shutters become very unreliable in the cold, and batteries
: don't deliver as much current (which might hamper the film advance).
Well.... in my experience, I have never been in a situation cold
enough for the batteries to fail. But, on the other hand, I live in
California, near the coast, where it stays fairly warm all year long.
Still, if this guy lives in the US (guessing this because he says
ZX-M, not MZ-M), for every place where it gets cold enough for
batteries to fail, there are about a gazillion others where it will
never get that cold.
Besides, I never said it wasn't a good thing to have a fully
mechanical shutter. In fact, in my post, I noted how nice it was to
have a mechanical shutter.
: >A lot of people think Nikon is a lot more expensive than other brands,
: >but when you look at things on a bigger scale, Nikon lenses really
: >aren't any more expensive than Canon, Minolta or Pentax
: >lenses. (Actually, I think this is the general stereotype because
: >Nikon's cheap stuff is more expensive, but their expensive lenses tend
: >to cost less than competing ones--the 80-200/2.8 is a great example.)
:
: But is the Nikon lens as good as the Canon/Pentax/Minolta/Olympus?
: The lens you mention seems to have been criticised by several users for
: exhibiting fairly severe vignetting. Not what I want in a $1000 lens.
: And you have to be prepared to drop some pretty serious sums on lenses
: before you overcome the price difference between, say, an N90s + back
: as opposed to a PZ-1p or an A2E. Look on the bigger scale by all means,
: but be sure you are looking at the whole picture.
I don't own this lens, so I can't speak from experience. On the other
hand, I've never heard that it vignettes, and it's reputed to be at
the very top when it comes to 80-200 zooms as far as optical quality.
Anyway, according to my most recent B&H catalog, the Nikkor 80-200/2.8
is under $900, while the Canon 70-200/2.8 USM is nearly $1400, the
Pentax 80-200/2.8 is nearly $1700, and the equivalent 3rd party lenses
range in price from $700 to $900.
My main point was not that the Nikkors are better, but that they are
not as expensive as people think they are. It is true, though, that
when it comes to lower priced lenses, most other brands are cheaper
than Nikon.
: Given that the original poster is asking about K-mount cameras, how is
: the lens interchangeability of Pentax cameras any worse than Nikons?
:
: Any Pentax K-mount lens can be used, unmodified, on any K-mount body
: (except for the ultra-cheap ZX-50, which wil 'only' work properly with
: lenses made in the last 15 years). That's not true for Nikons - some
: old lenses need to be modified to work on any newer bodies. Admittedly
: it's a simple modification, and it doesn't prevent them continuing to
: work just fine on older bodies. But you don't have to do that with a
: Pentax.
The Pentax K-mount, AFAIK, is about 20 years old, while the Nikon F
mount is nearing 50. It is true that older, non-AI nikkors need
modification to be used on newer bodies, but this is no different than
the fact that screw mount Takumars need an adaptor to be used on
K-mount bodies. This is what I meant when I said Pentax lenses are
compatible with all their bodies, but "to a lesser extent."
: Don't get me wrong - I think Nikons are wonderful cameras. If I was
: starting from scratch today an N90s paired with an older mechanical
: body would make my short list (and an F5 is up there on the fantasy
: shelf). Buying Nikon stuff would never be a 'wrong' decision.
: But it isn't by any means the only 'right' decision, either.
I never said Nikon was the "right" decision. I may have spent more
time writing about Nikon than I did about Pentax, Minolta, or Canon,
but that is only because I own a Nikon camera and thus know more about
Nikon than I do about other brands.
I did not mean for that post to sound like I was trying to promote
Nikon over any other brand of camera. But if it did, I hope I've
cleared up the confusion.
Rishi Ghosh
Bozhidar Dimitrov (b...@cs.purdue.edu) writes:
>
> Rishi Ghosh (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
> : all of the new lenses. Just listen to the shutter sound difference
> : of the K1000 and ZX-m (a nice solid sound VS a weak ker-plink!)-
> : that shows the difference in quality. They don't make thinks
> : like they used to! Thats why the K1000 is more expensive than
> : the ZX-M!
>
> So you can tell how good a cemera is by just hearing the sound of making an
> exposure? Wow!
>
> Are you also claiming that a heavy mirror slap is better than a well damped
> one? The ZX-M has P, Tv, Av, and M operation, program flash, automatic
> X sync, etc. There are features that might be well worth someone's money.
> The only thing that the K1000 has over the ZX-M is the metal construction
> and mechanical operation. Some of the newer K1000's are not even mostly
> metal.
>
> So, I don't agree with the above generalization. K1000 for some people,
> ZX-M for others. One could learn the basics very well with both.
>
> Cheers,
> Boz Dimitrov
>
I have no doubt that the ZX-M can take fine pictures, just like the K1000.
IMHO, and I stress opinion, the K1000 FEELS like a machine which is built
to last- thats all. And that feeling also comes from the resounding mirror
slap in the K1000. I'm not sure, the ZX-M might have a better dampened mirror
slap, but my guess is that it uses lighter plastic replacements for the
metal usedin the classic K1000 mechanism to give that dampenedness. That is not to
say that the ZX-M will not last as long just because its plastic either! I
personally just don't like its feel or sound. True enough the ZX-M has
more features for the money, but again IMHO, that does not make it a
better camera. Better is a very subjective term. To me a better camera
is one which will hold up to my routine usage which might mean a little
banging around in a backpack, and perhaps a humid and cold environment,
but at the same time being a competant picture taker. I
personally don't like too much automation in a camera since not only is
there more to go wrong, but it also takes the fun out of taking pictures-
the user seems to become just a glorified tripod for some of those Fully
automated cameras- again, my opinion. With these thoughts in mind, that's
why I suggest the K1000 over the ZX-M: In fact, I'm looking for a K1000
in good condition and reasonable price myself (not the ZX-M).
Should you look for the K1000, I suggest getting one made in Japan and one
which is perhaps a little older so that more of its components are
metal as Boz pointed out. Of course, make sure its in good condition!
These are just my humble thoughts, and Boz certainly knows more
about the specs and has had more experience than I with these cameras!
Regards,
Rishi.
David M Anthony
In article <6l9j7r$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Rishi Ghosh <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> Rishi Ghosh (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>>
>> : all of the new lenses. Just listen to the shutter sound difference
>> : of the K1000 and ZX-m (a nice solid sound VS a weak ker-plink!)-
>> : that shows the difference in quality. They don't make thinks
>> : like they used to! Thats why the K1000 is more expensive than
>> : the ZX-M!
>>
>> So you can tell how good a cemera is by just hearing the sound of making an
>> exposure? Wow!
>>
>> Are you also claiming that a heavy mirror slap is better than a well damped
>> one? The ZX-M has P, Tv, Av, and M operation, program flash, automatic
>> X sync, etc. There are features that might be well worth someone's money.
>> The only thing that the K1000 has over the ZX-M is the metal construction
>> and mechanical operation. Some of the newer K1000's are not even mostly
>> metal.
>>
>> So, I don't agree with the above generalization. K1000 for some people,
>> ZX-M for others. One could learn the basics very well with both.
>>
>
>I have no doubt that the ZX-M can take fine pictures, just like the K1000.
>IMHO, and I stress opinion, the K1000 FEELS like a machine which is built
>to last- thats all. And that feeling also comes from the resounding mirror
>slap in the K1000. I'm not sure, the ZX-M might have a better dampened mirror
>metal usedin the classic K1000 mechanism to give that dampenedness. That is not to
>say that the ZX-M will not last as long just because its plastic either! I
>personally just don't like its feel or sound. True enough the ZX-M has
>more features for the money, but again IMHO, that does not make it a
>better camera. Better is a very subjective term. To me a better camera
>is one which will hold up to my routine usage which might mean a little
>banging around in a backpack, and perhaps a humid and cold environment,
How humid are your environments that your camera gets dampened?
:-i
DA
--
Dave Anthony
Grcolts
I recently got a Pentax ZX-M camera and have used the K1000 in the past. In my
humble opinion, and it is only an opinion, the only thing the K1000 has over
the ZX-M is that it can be used without a battery. Other than that, the ZX-M is
far more benefical with many more useful features. For the money, the ZX-:M is
the better buy. If you are looking for a camera that is more weather resistant
then you should be looking at an LX or OM4T.
GQR
Ron Walton
--
Ron Walton
Visit the Bloomington Photo Club
at www.geocities.com/soho/lofts/7884/bpc/bpc.html
Grcolts wrote in message
<199806061305...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
No one has mentioned how inaccurate the shutter of the K1000
is or how slow the meter is. I borrowed a K1000 that was maybe 8
years old but was only used on holidays and birthdays ( about 10
rolls of 24 exp a year ) and the clear sky test showed a different
density on almost every frame. Probably good enough for negative
film tho.
As one progresses in the art of photography you will find
that letting the camera do the work for you is a great asset. I
found out early on that maybe 75% of the time I would get good
results just by using the meter recommendations. Why not let the
camera make these adjustments for you if that's the way you would
set it yourself?
I also found out that the film needs to be advanced for
every exposure. Again, why not let the camera do this.
Also-If you buy a used K1000 it will probably need a CLA.
Ron Walton
Rishi Ghosh
David M Anthony (ant...@ecf.toronto.edu) writes:
>>to last- thats all. And that feeling also comes from the resounding mirror
>>slap in the K1000. I'm not sure, the ZX-M might have a better dampened mirror
> ^^^^^^^^
>>slap, but my guess is that it uses lighter plastic replacements for the
>>metal usedin the classic K1000 mechanism to give that dampenedness. That is not to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>banging around in a backpack, and perhaps a humid and cold environment,
> ^^^^^
>
> How humid are your environments that your camera gets dampened?
>
> Dave Anthony
>
> ant...@ecf.utoronto.ca
>
Actually, I was referring to the mirror slap "dampening" - that is,
when the mirror flips up to allow light to enter the camera body
to expose the film and then flips back down, there is vibration
which could affect the sharpness of the picture. Good cameras will
have a mechanism to "dampen" this vibration <ie. reduce the
vibration>. Mirror lock up is one way of eliminating this
vibration all together.
As far as using a camera in a humid environment, it depends on
what type of pictures you like taking. I have a Super Program
which I tend to baby. Because of its electronics, I don't take
pictures in the rain (even very light rain) nor while its
snowing or with wet gloves in winter etc. For the same reason,
I would not take a ZX-M in the same conditions- because of the
electronics, motors etc. But I'd love to have a cheap K1000 to
take pictures in harsher weather- just that there is less to
go wrong!
Regards,
Rishi.
David M Anthony
In article <6lbt9e$k...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Rishi Ghosh <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>David M Anthony (ant...@ecf.toronto.edu) writes:
>>>to last- thats all. And that feeling also comes from the resounding mirror
>>>slap in the K1000. I'm not sure, the ZX-M might have a better dampened mirror
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>slap, but my guess is that it uses lighter plastic replacements for the
>>>metal usedin the classic K1000 mechanism to give that dampenedness. That is not to
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>banging around in a backpack, and perhaps a humid and cold environment,
>> ^^^^^
>>
>> How humid are your environments that your camera gets dampened?
>>
>
>when the mirror flips up to allow light to enter the camera body
>to expose the film and then flips back down, there is vibration
>which could affect the sharpness of the picture. Good cameras will
>have a mechanism to "dampen" this vibration <ie. reduce the
>vibration>. Mirror lock up is one way of eliminating this
>vibration all together.
And I was alluding to the fact that dampen means to moisten and dampened
means made moist. Like in a moist, or humid environment. 'Dampenedness'
is a new word to me. It was a joke.
I think you meant 'damp' the vibrations, or the vibrations were 'damped'.
>As far as using a camera in a humid environment, it depends on
>what type of pictures you like taking. I have a Super Program
>which I tend to baby. Because of its electronics, I don't take
>pictures in the rain (even very light rain) nor while its
>snowing or with wet gloves in winter etc. For the same reason,
>I would not take a ZX-M in the same conditions- because of the
>electronics, motors etc. But I'd love to have a cheap K1000 to
>take pictures in harsher weather- just that there is less to
>go wrong!
Count me as a K1000 detractor...that this bottom of the line camera
persisted is remarkable. It is the equivalent of the MZ-50.
Although I have not had problems with my Super Program in light
precipitation, if I had to recommend an _all_mechanical_ Pentax
I'd choose the MX (smaller, DOF preview, timer, aperture readout,
intechangeable focussing screens, winder available), or the KX (DOF,
timer, MLU, aperture readout) before the K1000.
IMO, Pentax should have kept up production of the MX.
Dave
--
Dave Anthony
Bozhidar Dimitrov
David M Anthony (ant...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: Although I have not had problems with my Super Program in light
: precipitation, if I had to recommend an _all_mechanical_ Pentax
: I'd choose the MX (smaller, DOF preview, timer, aperture readout,
: intechangeable focussing screens, winder available), or the KX (DOF,
: timer, MLU, aperture readout) before the K1000.
: IMO, Pentax should have kept up production of the MX.
Yes!!!
Boz Dimitrov
Wai Lun Alan Chan
>Count me as a K1000 detractor...that this bottom of the line camera
>persisted is remarkable. It is the equivalent of the MZ-50.
I still remember when I first picked up a camera, I did not even consider
the K1000 which was simply a joke to me. I had the same feeling that
K1000 should not survive. As my knowledge on photography has grown over
the years, my impression on K1000 is completely different. It is an
excellent choice for those who don't need auto features but a camera
that will click years after years without worry. For some applications
like landscape, there is no reason why it cannot handle if one has a
good understanding on basics like exposure.
>Although I have not had problems with my Super Program in light
>precipitation, if I had to recommend an _all_mechanical_ Pentax
>I'd choose the MX (smaller, DOF preview, timer, aperture readout,
>intechangeable focussing screens, winder available), or the KX (DOF,
>timer, MLU, aperture readout) before the K1000.
I certainly feel MX is a better choice than K1000. The only problem
is most MX on used market today have been used a lot and their life
are limited after 20yrs. There are some mint condition MX around, still,
but not as easy to find. I have also come across a few MX which looks
mint outside but with all sorts of malfunctions (seemed work okay but
not after some tests).
>IMO, Pentax should have kept up production of the MX.
I certainly agree. I would probably one or two if they did.
But I prefer a winder without a grip for the compactness.
regards,
Alan Chan
Brandon Campbell
In article <3575f253...@news.mindspring.com>, em...@server.123 (Jim) wrote:
> How does the Pentax ZX-M compare to the Pentax K1000?
Many more plastic parts, and totally dependent on the battery. No mirror
lockup (but then, the K-1000 doesn't have it either). But for what it is,
it's supposed to be quite nice.
--
Brandon Wayne Campbell http://people.unt.edu/~brandonc/
bwc...@airmail.net (preferred for personal mail)
camp...@tc.umn.edu (school-related mail until summer 1998)
bran...@jove.acs.unt.edu (school-related mail after summer 1998)
Wai Lun Alan Chan
>> How does the Pentax ZX-M compare to the Pentax K1000?
>Many more plastic parts, and totally dependent on the battery. No mirror
>lockup (but then, the K-1000 doesn't have it either). But for what it is,
>it's supposed to be quite nice.
I have been reading this thread for quite a while. I have an interesting
discovery that many responses mentioned MZ/ZX-M had many more plastic
parts than K1000. While I do not doubt this, I found it interesting
why MZ/ZX-M only. The whole MZ/ZX line is based on the same structure
and probably have just about as much plastic parts. I tried both MZ-5n
and MZ-M and they felt and sounded exactly the same. I opened up my
my F801s and Z-1p, and there were many plastic gears too. I suspect
many other AF cameras like Elan II have just as much plastic as (if not
exact) MZ/ZX-M once U opened it. But no one in this group really
against MZ/ZX-5n or Elan II so far. Just a thought.
regards,
Alan Chan
Rishi Ghosh
David M Anthony (ant...@ecf.toronto.edu) writes:
>
> And I was alluding to the fact that dampen means to moisten and dampened
> means made moist. Like in a moist, or humid environment. 'Dampenedness'
> is a new word to me. It was a joke.
>
> I think you meant 'damp' the vibrations, or the vibrations were 'damped'.
>
Sorry, missed your joke. I am aware of the double meaning of the
word "damp" and its various forms. "Dampenedness" is a word- an
adjective, which I made up since it seemed to fit. And no, I did
mean "dampen" the vibrations. "Dampen", a real word, according
to Websters dictionary is the verb which means "to stifle, or
deaden" as well as "to make moist". I was using it with the
former meaning; but whose counting grammar <grin>?
>
> Count me as a K1000 detractor...that this bottom of the line camera
> persisted is remarkable. It is the equivalent of the MZ-50.
>
> Although I have not had problems with my Super Program in light
> precipitation, if I had to recommend an _all_mechanical_ Pentax
> I'd choose the MX (smaller, DOF preview, timer, aperture readout,
> intechangeable focussing screens, winder available), or the KX (DOF,
> timer, MLU, aperture readout) before the K1000.
>
> IMO, Pentax should have kept up production of the MX.
> Dave Anthony
I agree, but there are other considerations IMHO. True, the MX
is an all mechanical camera with more features and which
handles very well. But as Alan points out in a later post,
there are fewer MX's around in good working order, and those
that are, are considerably more expensive than the K1000.
As I am not rich, I would rather risk a K1000 while rock
climbing or in the snow than an MX, or an LX for that
matter. I am sure both the LX and MX would be able to
hold up if the K1000 could, but I couldn't stand to see
any dents on those fine cameras. The K1000 I guess is a
little more versatile as it is more expendable IMHO.
On the other hand, if you've got lots of cash....
Regards,
Rishi.
Bob Beaver
In article <6lbsej$uqg$1...@topsy.kiva.net>, "Ron Walton" <Ro...@tima.com> wrote:
> No one has mentioned how inaccurate the shutter of the K1000
>is or how slow the meter is. I borrowed a K1000 that was maybe 8
>years old but was only used on holidays and birthdays ( about 10
>rolls of 24 exp a year ) and the clear sky test showed a different
>density on almost every frame. Probably good enough for negative
>film tho.
> As one progresses in the art of photography you will find
>that letting the camera do the work for you is a great asset. I
>found out early on that maybe 75% of the time I would get good
>results just by using the meter recommendations. Why not let the
>camera make these adjustments for you if that's the way you would
>set it yourself?
> I also found out that the film needs to be advanced for
>every exposure. Again, why not let the camera do this.
> Also-If you buy a used K1000 it will probably need a CLA.
>Ron Walton
I heartily agree. The technology in the K1000 is hopelessly outdated. The
shutter is mechanical with a slow sync speed. The metering cell is slow
reacting, and there is a dearth of information in the viewfinder. The only
things that a photographer can really learn to set with this camera are
shutter speed and lens aperture and setting these soon becomes a pain because
one has to constantly remove the camera from the eye and look at the settings
on the camera body instead of seeing them in the viewfinder. The metering
system is archaic center-weighted averaging, without a spot meter option. The
flash metering is not TTL and would soon become difficult to use if one
graduates into macro photography or into using creative filters. As one
becomes more interested in photography, one would almost certainly have to buy
another, more advanced body, so why bother with the K1000?
The newer cameras have a wealth of information in the viewfinder, making
manual settings much easier to use. The K1000 also lacks a depth of field
preview, which is an important tool for those who are learning photography.
While I admire the K1000's old reliable metal construction, it lacks far too
many advanced features to be of use to just about anyone who is serious about
photography. I suspect that its reputation for durability is due in no small
part to the fact that many users seldom use it because it is so darn spartan
in features. For those who are truly interested in learning photography, get
a camera with auto-everything but with the option to set everything manually.
The really important things to learn about photography are when to shoot, what
to shoot and how to compose the photo. Cameras that take care of the mundane
stuff while you concentrate on the really important ones are the cameras that
you can really grow with as a photographer.
I wish Pentax would put some of the K1000's solid construction back into the
newer models and let the 2 decades old K1000 (which is really a stripped down
version of the short-lived KM) RIP.
BTW I second the opinion that Pentax should have continued production of the
MX.
Tom Rittenhouse
I'll second that!
--
graywolf
(Tom Rittenhouse)
------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Marsh
Hi,
Wai Lun Alan Chan <wl...@cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
#I have been reading this thread for quite a while. I have an interesting
#discovery that many responses mentioned MZ/ZX-M had many more plastic
#parts than K1000. While I do not doubt this, I found it interesting
#why MZ/ZX-M only. The whole MZ/ZX line is based on the same structure
#and probably have just about as much plastic parts. I tried both MZ-5n
#and MZ-M and they felt and sounded exactly the same. I opened up my
#my F801s and Z-1p, and there were many plastic gears too. I suspect
#many other AF cameras like Elan II have just as much plastic as (if not
I think the reason that it comes up in this case is because it is a metal
camera being replaced by a plastic one. Most other comparisons are
between cameras that have been all plastic for some time.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Edit a binary .INI file, then tell
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | me that UNIX is too complicated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------