Talk:Pentax K1000

message: The link for the Pentax manual is broken.  I will attempt to find a new link. Tommy.rousse 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed link from Pentax and added a link to a manual in color and .jpg instead of .pdf. Tommy.rousse 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: It seems that nowhere in the article it's stated that the K1000 is a K mount version of the Spotmatic SPII. Bodies looks similar and many part are exchangeable between the cameras. BTW I plan to replace the winding lever on mine by a SPII one that is more ergonomic, but was probably much more expensive to build. Ericd (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The K1000 is a Spotmatic 

message: Too biased. I own one, but to say it's the greatest is nonsense. Also Pentax made some great camera's before and after the K1000, I mention the spotmatic, the LX and the MX.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.18.88 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest camera on earth? 

message: In 1983, Modern Photography said: "When we say a camera is rugged, we mean that it's capable of taking a greater-than-average amount of physical abuse without breaking down. When we say a camera is durable we mean that it will tend to last longer than most cameras of its type without breaking down under conditions of average use, or will withstand a greater number of 'cycles of operation' (i.e., film wind and shutter release with film in the camera) while remaining within tolerance." (Anonymous "Too Hot To Handle." p 59. Modern Photography, Volume 47, Number 3; March 1983. ISSN 0026-8240.)
A professional photographer could take 1000 film exposures in one busy workday (double that in the digital era). With an amateur level 50,000 cycle rating, the K1000 was simply not durable or rugged enough to keep up a professional pace for long. (During the 1980s, the professional level Nikon F3 and Canon F-1N were rated at 150,000 and 100,000 abusive cycles, respectively.) Therefore, I have restored phrasing that it was not of professional level durability.
Instead of "durable," the K1000 was "reliable." According to the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology: "Reliability is the probability that an engineering system will perform its intended function satisfactorily (from the viewpoint of the customer) for its intended life under specified environmental and operating conditions." (Licker, Mark D., publisher. McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. 9th Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2002. . "Reliability, availability, and maintainability," Vol. 15, pp 353-359.) Because of its simplicity, there was little to go wrong at any given moment, making the K1000 pretty reliable – if not abused. Paul1513 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The K1000 did not have professional level durability.

message: lot of talk on how the pentaprism can desilver, but I know nothing about this  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4700:1F70:5411:F177:5934:F4CC (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: desilvering of petaprism

message: Someone removed Japan as one of the places the K1000 was made.  Weren't some made in Japan?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made in Japan?