I was just pointing out the difference between the KM and the K1000. The KM is a better camera.
----------------- J.C.O'Connell [email protected] ----------------- -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:10 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Best FF Pentax Rumour Story EVER!!!!!! The point is that the more difficult repair is the meter. Mechanical parts can be fabricated by a good machinist the circuit boards are the least repairable part. Weather the K1000 had a DOF preview is irrelevant to this, except that if you have a non functioning KM and a functioning K1000 you'd be better off the sacrifice the K1000 to rebuild the KM, and wasn't that my point? On 9/17/2012 9:50 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote: > I think the KM had dof preview, something the k1000 seriously lacked. > > ----------------- > J.C.O'Connell > [email protected] > ----------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of P. > J. Alling > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:57 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Best FF Pentax Rumour Story EVER!!!!!! > > The KM and the SPF were pretty much the same camera with different > mounts, the meters are interchangeable. The K1000 was a KM without a > self timer, once again the meter circuitry is interchangeable. With the > large number of K1000s available donor cameras, the KM will be > repairable to more complete functionalty long after it's more highly > specified siblings the KX and K2 are rendered meterless. That's also > good news for SPF owners, as the K1000 works as a meter circuit donor > for them as well. > > > On 9/16/2012 8:27 PM, George Sinos wrote: >> That was in the transition days when they were moving from the screw >> mount to the k-mount. They actually sold both models in both mounts >> for about 2 years. It seems like that was around 1973 or 1974. gs >> >> George Sinos >> -------------------- >> [email protected] >> www.georgesphotos.net >> plus.georgesinos.com >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, [email protected] >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The SP500 (which I have one of) actually does have a shutter speed of > 1/1000. There is an unmarked space on the shutter speed dial where the > 1/1000 speed would have been on the SP. Not only a space on the dial, but a > detente if you move the dial to that blank space. And if you press the > shutter release it will fire! >>> The story I heard is that the marketing department wanted a "discount" > Spotmatic, so came up with the idea for the SP500. Problem is that it would > have cost way to much to design and build a new shutter mechanism with no > 1/1000th speed. >>> The solution was to use the same shutter mechanism as the Spotmatic but > not paint 1/1000 on the dial. And not calibrate the 1/1000 speed. >>> The result is that for most SP500s the "phantom 1/1000" speed is off by > about 1/4 stop - hardly noticeable with most films, which tend to have a > much wider exposure latitude than digital. >>> Back when I used my SP500 I used that phantom 1/1000 all the time and it > worked just fine! >>> Since the SP500 lacked a few other features (self timer and hot shoe, > which by that time was - I believe - on the Spotmatic) it was still cheaper > to make. >>> I have no idea what this has to do with the current discussion; just a > bit of Pentax trivia is all... >>> Cheers, >>> frank >>> >>> "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- > Christopher Hitchens >>> --- Original Message --- >>> >>> From: Stan Halpin <[email protected]> >>> Sent: September 16, 2012 9/16/12 >>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Best FF Pentax Rumour Story EVER!!!!!! >>> >>> >>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: >>> >>>>> What you're suggesting for Pentax would be a recipe for oblivion. It's >>>>> a rare product that can sell and compete by boasting about what it >>>>> DOESN'T have/do. >>>> It would be dumb to market it that way, of course, but there is after > all a certain appeal in being able to classify a product as simple and/or > easy to use (as a result of not having many functions), and there are > examples in the camera business on how a focus on different qualities than a > long list of features or "cutting-edge" technology can be successful at > least in a relative sense. Just look at the interest generated by the recent > Fujifilm cameras. Or the Leica Ms for that manner. We're of course talking > about a quite different market, there, but it seems to me that to a certain > extent, they sell because of the features they don't have. Like auto-focus, > for instance. The marketing doesn't actually boast about not offering it, > though. >>>>> OK, I can do w/o just about all picture modes, in >>>>> camera RAW processing and in-camera HDR. But some people just love >>>>> that. >>>> I'd love to see someone should trying to make a camera without that > functionality, though. Maybe it wouldn't be sensible as the only option, but > if you based such a model on a different one with all those features, the > development cost should also be close to 0. As such, it might not be such a > bad idea from a business perspective, even if the marked might be limited. >>> IIRC, back in the Spotmatic days, Pentax had two camera models identical > in virtually all specs. Except one had a max shutter speed of 1/1000, the > other had a limit screw which restricted the shutter speed max to 1/500. > Don't want fast shutter? Pay less. I think this would also work today. Don't > want video on your DSLR? Pentax should give you a discount of $200 compared > to a "full-featured" model, then charge you a $225 firmware upgrade fee if > you change your mind later. >>> stan >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > -- Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthly search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
