« Dave Brubeck 1920-2012 | Main | The Nice Price »

Thursday, 06 December 2012


I know it's nothing new, but I can imagine someone getting that bargain and being happy for some years. Sure not us gearheads, but someone dedicated to photography.

As he says about his $45 purchase - "Looking through the viewfinder almost made me swoon:"

At $299 the Nikon V1 is a very good deal... if you're interested in a camera with a sensor even smaller than Four Thirds (though still huge compared to most compact cameras).

The Pentax K-01, on the other hand, was pathetic in so many ways it wasn't even funny. Hideously ugly (as Wolcott notes, it looked like a Tonka toy), it was a mirrorless camera nearly the size of a DSLR, complete with enough wasted empty space inside it to fit a full-frame SLR's reflex mirror -- a misfeature made necessary by the decision to use a standard K mount. The lack of a viewfinder was also disastrous -- as with the Canon EOS-M, it immediately killed any interest many people (including me) might have had in it.

I like his conclusion that the K-1000 is a better investment. Digital devices are practically obsolete by the time they get to market these days, but decades-old film cameras can still make great pictures.

I agree. I've just bought a GF1 with the 20mm for less than 400 usd. I'll love to get a GX1, but I'll simply wait one year and get it for less than 400 usd when the GX3 is launched (GX2 will be launched in 6 months).

I worry about James Wolcott's use of the word "obsolescent" in regard to a Pentax K-1000. He says as long as film is made, he doesn't have to worry about the camera becoming obsolescent. I'd say that the camera is already obsolescent, it's just not quite obsolete. What do you think?

"Why buy a digital camera on it's maiden launch?" Because someone has to do it,I guess...

Bought both the Leica M9 and the Olympus EM-5 more or less on their maiden launches. And I've had no cause to regret either decision.

Well this early spring I bought an OM-2N with a terrific 1:1,4/50mm for just 70€. So I'm with James: "...as long as they manufacture film, never obsolescent."

My congrats to Kirk, who's now a true V.I.P. :-)

"Why would anyone buy a digital camera on its maiden launch?"

Because everyone is not James Wolcott.

On Kames Wolcott:
1. the man can write
2. he has heard about Kirk Tuck
3. he knows what a V2 is
Not too bad from a publication I would never dream of reading in the first place.

There's a certain peace of mind that comes when you embrace film's obsolescence. One no longer need worry about being made obsolete next year, next month, next week. You're free to concentrate on other things, like taking pictures... with a $45 camera.

Mike, re the honours, I prefer the version explained by Bernard Woolley in the "Yes Minister" stories. GMG = Call Me God; KCMG = Kindly Call Me God; GCMG = God Calls Me God.

And regarding his $45 solution: he got ripped. A few weeks ago I bought a K1000 with the same lens, nice case, and a working meter, good shutter speeds, all for the princely sum of $15.

Damn - Mike C got there before me with the British diplomatic trivia. My wife is a diplomat, she took one look at the Daily Mail extract and said "so that joke is that old".

The Nikon CX cameras do seem to be over priced. The camera manufacturers are always telling people that DSLR's are so expensive because of the sensor size, mirror mechanism etc etc. They then produce a camera with a smaller sensor no mirror etc and charge more than a similar DSLR. I'm sure that there is some expensive technology in there somewhere and development costs to defray but for a lot of people I suspect they just didn't look like good value

Kirk Tuck AND Steve Huff. I already liked Wolcott, did he have to troll me so shamelessly?



tapis - tapestry according to Wiktionary. I knew of Tapis crude (oil), but that's a new word for me. On the tablecloth, I assume.

Btw, seeing 9/9/17 reminded me of the significance of next Wednesday. It's 12/12/12. It's the last of a dodecade of palindromic dates, afaik. We started at 01/01/01 and progressed through the memorable 11/11/11. But as far as I can tell, this will be the last one for the rest of this millennium. We can't have 13/13/13 or 30/30/30 or anything like it until 3001. Am I right?

It'll also be the last date where you Yanks fall in line with the rest of us in showing dates - DD/MM/YY for us, MM/DD/YY you. Some European countries use YY/MM/DD, I know.

Stan B. ... you're right, but you do get to worry how you're going to process them, at least if one aims to share the results online, especially given a lack of shops that can process and print film in a trustworthy fashion.

That said, ages ago I gave my dad a Centon rip-off of the K-1000, and he was very happy with it for quite some years.

Reminds of a friend of a friend who didn't go to any sale, since those are crowded and only poor people have time to waste on those. While I have nothing against poor people, I'm generally too busy using my cameras rather than wasting time on Internet forums thinking whether the price will drop a hundred in a few months or so. Life is just too short; buy a camera you can afford and spend time using it.

Actually, the viewfinder of my D800 is the equal of my F3HP. Of course, the D800 does cost $2954 more than the K1000.

Has anyone seen any of Wolcott's images?

When you read "as long as they manufacture film, never obsolescent," did you immediately think of the tautology club from this xkcd comic? http://xkcd.com/703/

It is not $299 in a sense for v1 as I found out it comes with the battery and charger that cost at least $120 to buy, if you got a d600/800 etc that use that battery. It is $199 in value for the canera and lens by itself, in a pool of battery and charger concept.

Got J.W. AND Cris Nicholls both whipped, bought a K-1000 in mint condition, with a 50mm Pentax f/2 lens for 10 bucks a a resale shop in a small town between Madison and Milwaukee, WI. a little while ago! Really wanted it for the lens, as I was using a 50mm Sears lens on my current K-1000 body (altho a sharp one). Was amazed to get it home and blow the dust off it, and it looked like it was out of the box...and of course, I LOVE film...

Wolcott's $45 solution will cost him in film and development and printing as long as he uses it.

'tis a new Olympus model, right?

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007