HP OMEN 17 Review

Plan and Build 

HP OMEN 17 Review - The Omen 17 is an agonizing machine that blends a dull "shadow work" design with red accents. The metallic HP Omen logo emerges on the cover, and the keys encompass are in a similar tone. There's a shrewd, designed speaker grille, and the main HP logo on this machine is small and inconspicuous. 

The portable workstation looks great, yet it's somewhat of a knot. The HP weighs 3.35kg and is 34mm thick, which puts it at the best end of 17.3-inch gaming portable PCs – the Gigabyte P57X V7-CF1 weighed 3kg and was 29mm through and through. The HP's heavyweight configuration will make itself saw in your sack, consuming up more space than most different portable PCs. 

Regardless of its liberal shape factor, the HP isn't shaking strong. Pushing on the back of the screen brings about bends, and the underside of the portable PC is excessively adaptable for my enjoying. The wrist-rest and the territory around the console are far sturdier, in any event. 

Inside access isn't excessively incredible, either. A modest board on the underside of the gadget flies off to uncover the two involved memory spaces, yet that is it. This glaring difference a distinct difference to the Gigabyte, which gives simple access to each part nearby a swappable sound for an additional hard circle or DVD essayist. 

Console and Touchpad 

The red-tinted console is a failure. There is a different number cushion, however, whatever is left of its design is a let-down: the Return key isn't twofold stature, and the 'up' and 'down' cursor keys are packed into the space of a solitary catch. There aren't any full-scale keys, and there isn't any product to alter the console. 

It performs ineffectively when writing, as well. The keys are predictable and sensibly quick, yet they show even less go than the chiclet-style catches on most other gaming tablets – truth be told, the HP's writing activity is more reminiscent of a Dell XPS or a MacBook Pro than the dominant part of gaming portables. This is fine to hammer out archives, however, it implies the HP feels ill-defined amid extreme gaming sessions – this isn't great when a mis-sort can mean amusement over. 

The touchpad is discovered needs. The catches are delicate and push down too far, which implies they're far expelled from the best activities discovered somewhere else. The cushion itself endures excessively much rubbing, and the whole unit is unreasonably boisterous – individuals will hear you clicking from over the room. 

Screen and Sound 

Its shine level of 332 nits is gigantic, and the dark level of 0.34 nits makes for moderately profound blacks. The difference proportion of 976:1 is little lower than some gaming notepads, however overall it's an OK appearing. Regardless you'll get strong liveliness, the great definition between comparable shades and suitably inky dark territories while playing diversions and watching motion pictures. 

The normal Delta E level (measuring shading exactness, where more like zero is better) of 3.21 is consummately worthy, and the shading temperature of 6612K is phenomenal – nearly on a standard with the 6500K perfect, and far hotter than the washed-out screens of most gaming portable PCs. The HP can render 87.7% of the sRGB shading extent, which is another fine figure. 

The HP's screen is great, instead of extraordinary, and that frame proceeds to the backdrop illumination. The Omen's IPS board lost around 10% of its brilliance along its best and base edges, which isn't especially noticeable. 

The Omen's screen is strong for gaming, in spite of the fact that the board is another zone where there's an unmistakable absence of programming – numerous other gaming journals have distinctive modes and alteration alternatives. 

HP has included four Bang and Olufsen speakers with this machine, and this is one of the main ranges of this portable PC that can be controlled by programming. The Omen utilizes its Music mode as a matter of course, and it's heavenly: top of the line sounds are clear and the mid-run is very much adjusted, with no indication of the sloppy yield that is found on many gaming journals. There's bass, as well, despite the fact that it's a bit frail. 

The Omen's Music mode doesn't simply function admirably with Spotify; it has the volume and lucidity to influence diversions to sound awesome. There are Movie and Voice modes, as well, albeit both are somewhat tinny. The Music mode is the best choice here, at that point, and it's much better than the sound on most different tablets. 

Execution 

It's the second-best portable workstation GPU from Nvidia's most recent range, which implies it has a tremendous measure of energy: its 2048 stream processors send the strong and productive Pascal engineering, which is presently utilized inside the majority of the best gaming tablets. 

The GTX 1070 keeps running at 1442MHz, with a lift clock that flies past 1700MHz, and it has 8GB of memory – a tremendous sum for a portable PC GPU. 

The GTX 1070 is a powerful piece of silicon. Its Tomb Raider outline rate of 93.4fps is serenely in front of the Gigabyte P57X V7-CF1, which scored 77.4fps with its standard timekeepers chose; and the HP arrived at the midpoint of a stonking 121fps in Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor – ten edges past the Gigabyte.

Those are strong rates, so it's nothing unexpected that the HP's 3DMark scores are superior to the Gigabyte, as well – in the 3DMark: Fire Strike test, the HP scored 13,064; the Gigabyte could oversee just 12,890. 

As ever, however, there's a whole other world to these machines than basic benchmark scores. The HP may have outpaced the Gigabyte in standard tests, however, the P57X has overclocking that the Omen doesn't – and turning up the Gigabyte's GPU saw it jump the HP with a reconsidered 3DMark: Fire Strike score of 13,759. 

The GTX 1070 is a well-known decision, yet whatever remains of the determination is a blended pack. First of all, the HP is supported by a Core i7-6700HQ. It's a fine quad-center chip with a 2.6GHz stock speed and a 3.5GHz Turbo top, yet it's a little slower than Kaby Lake, and furthermore, passes up a great opportunity for Intel's enhanced clock speed control and better chipsets. 

This adaptation of the Omen 17 is still marked down in a couple of corners of the web – it's known as the 17-w106na, and it costs £1499/$1947. 

Gratefully, HP's 17-w200na refreshes the Omen with the natural Core i7-7700HQ processor. That part doesn't simply profit by Kaby Lake's enhancements – it's quicker, as well, on account of its 2.8GHz base clock and 3.8GHz Turbo crest. 

This is the variant of the Omen 17 I'd get: it costs just £1520/$1979 for that enhanced CPU, and everything else is indistinguishable between the two models, with 16GB of memory, a 256GB SSD and a 1TB hard circle. 

The more seasoned Core i7 processor conveyed no curve balls in benchmarks. Its Geekbench single-and multi-center scores of 4086 and 11,512 are fine, however, they're somewhat behind the P57X – not a stun considering the more established processor. It's sufficiently still paced to deal with practically anything, in spite of the fact that the SSD's ordinary perused and compose rates of 1131MB/sec and 1068MB/sec are slower than the drive inside the Gigabyte portable workstation. 

HP's machine returned blended outcomes in warm tests. When I ran a gaming benchmark over a drawn-out timeframe, the CPU and GPU crested at 84oC and 71oC separately, and the machine didn't direct out much warmth or clamor – the console was somewhat hotter than common, however, that was it. 

When I included a CPU push test, be that as it may, the processor increase to a toasty 97oC, which is excessively hot for my taste. The clamor wound up noticeably about twice as noisy amid this test, and warm air was pumped from vents on the two sides. It was never unsafe, yet it will be awkward in the event that you play with an outer mouse. 

It's an ordinary determination, yet matches offer significantly more for some additional money. The Gigabyte P57X V7-CF1 has a 1080p variation for £1799/$2343, and that machine accompanies 32GB of memory, a quicker SSD, a DVD essayist, and GPU overclocking. In any case, that is a reasonable extend past the £1520 you'll spend on the Omen 17, which ostensibly has all the fundamental specs that most gamers would need. 

Battery Life 

There's one zone where the HP avoided the gaming portable workstation incline: battery life. This current machine's six-cell control pack went on for 6hrs 42mins in the standard benchmark, which is around twice the length most gaming portable workstations can deal with; the Gigabyte didn't make it to three hours. 

That outcome meant a life expectancy of 2hrs 10mins of every a harder gaming benchmark, which stays about twice in the same class as most other gaming journals. The HP still won't deal with a really long gaming session, at that point, yet in any event, it's superior to most.

The Zenith of Quirk - The Comet Camera

Beginning in the late 1940's, Bencini of Milan Italy produced a number of uniquely designed 127 cameras under the "Comet" name, culminating with the very distinctive vertically situated Comet III of 1953 that remains today as a highly distinctive and desirable camera among collectors, fetching prices of over $100 on the collector market.

This review is however not of the Bencini Comet.  I may be a quirky guy with a camera but I am also a frugal guy with a family, so my likelihood of picking up a Bencini Comet are pretty slim.

However, I was fortunate enough to pick up a very distinctive 127 camera from the same era, also vertically oriented, and also bearing the Comet name, but made half a world away in the United States by Zenith Camera Corporation.

While a significant amount of American 127 cameras sold in the post war era tend to be of a nearly identical design consisting of using the "half-frame" 127 format and a fixed focus lens, the design of the Zenith Comet is completely distinct from these cameras, and features:

• Near full frame 127 images ranging between 55 and 60mm long.
• An adjustable aperture.
• Instantaneous and time exposure settings.
• A curved film plane.
• Adjustable focus from 4 feet to infinity.
• A uniquely inset viewfinder.

When I spotted the Comet for sale at every camera collector's most beloved and reviled auction website, I just knew I had to partake of it.  I'm not even sure that I was aware of its full "feature set," but I was smitten by its novel design, and lured by its cheap acquisition cost.  On it's arrival, I was really intrigued by the novel design, and honestly could not wait to get acquainted with it, and run some film through it. 

  

Unlike most base level 127 cameras of the era, the Comet requires pre-tensioning of the shutter by turning the knob to the right.  In pre-testing of the camera, I found it best to rotate the dial back to its original position after cocking to ensure the lens is not obstructed.  Different buttons allow for normal and time exposure shooting, while an aperture switch at top changes the diaphragm opening.

The most interesting feature of the Comet is the ability to set a focusing distance, based upon marking on the slide out lens barrel.  This feature made it easy for me to remember to extend the lens in the first place (unlike my early tries with the Univex Iris) though I found that the lens barrel was prone to uneven extension that would likely impact image quality.

While the Comet can be used in either a vertical or horizontal orientation, it is situated more for the portrait layout.  Above the lens barrel is the viewfinder that oddly peers through the camera body itself, making me worry about the possibility of light leaks. 

Side profile of the Comet shows the curved film plane, an attempt to extract as much sharpness as possible from the small simple lens.  

Upon its arrival, I wasted very little time slitting a roll of TMAX 100 down to 127, and took the opportunities that a unscheduled leave day provided to put the camera through its paces. I really didn't know too much of what to expect of such a cheap but adjustable camera, but figured it all to be part of the fun.  

And shooting the Comet was, for the most part, just that. The camera provides just enough crude control to make you feel like you have some input into the final result of your pictures, but enough limitations to cause you to plan your use of the camera accordingly.  With the 100 speed film loaded, I was fortunate to have a mostly sunny day at my disposal to test the camera, so I never felt like I was trying to do too much with the Comet and push it beyond its capabilities.

After developing the first roll, I was actually somewhat impressed when looking at the negatives, but discovered after scanning that my initial impressions were a bit premature. This is after all a very rudimentary camera trying to coerce its capabilities well beyond its hardware, so tempered expectations for the results are a must.  

Right off the bat, my first photo taken with the Comet was a disaster.  Despite trying to focus on the bushes in the mid-ground, the result looks far more impressionistic.  The film may not have been situated properly on the film plane.

By the second image however, I'm seeing a little bit of potential to this odd camera.  The focus on the first fence post is actually pretty close.

It's not quite what I pictured when taking this photo, but there are some sharp elemens in the bushes in the center of the image.  Shame I set the focusing distance to about where the bench is situated. 

Wow, this one actually isn't bad! With focus set on the "Universal 20 Feet" line, I snagged this image in strong morning light. 

Again, decent image sharpness in the center of the image, though some marked fall off by the sides and corners.  Still, an interesting result.

Film plan flatness seems to be a definite issue with the Comet.  Here, the right side of the image actually appears to render a bit more sharply than the center. 

My favorite shot of the first roll, focused perfectly on my subject while adding a muted foreground and background at the edges to provide great separation. 

Naturally, I had to test the focusing distance in practice.  The above was focused at about 6 feet while the below was focused for infinity.  The corn stalk appears nicely focused in the first image while the tree, indistinct in the first image, appears in sharper focus below.  Oddly, the farm house doesn't look particularly sharp in either image.  These two images also bring to light a very interesting trait of images taken on the Comet: those taken at closer distances actually give off larger images on the negative than ones taken at infinity.  The above image measures roughly 40mm x 60mm while the below image sizes up at about 40mm x 55mm. 

One final shot on my impromptu day off.  Still, not the best result, but very nostalgic in nature. 

Armed with a good stash of Portra 160 and having enjoyed my rambles with the Comet, I could not resist giving it another try in color, as I tried to exploit some of Portra's nice tendencies when overexposed.    Developing this extended length 127 film was a particular challenge given that my 127 steel reels are designed for normal 127 length film, leaving me to have to attempt color developing in a particularly tricky "FR" plastic tank.  

Terrible image sharpness along the sides, light leaks evident as well, and yet I really like how well the leaves on the small tree were rendered in this photo.  

Another distant shot taken at the same location doesn't render quite as well.  Yes, the sharpness is overall better, but the color rendition isn't as nice as the image above. 

A shot taken from Skyline Drive shows some parts of the image and focus and others not so much.  I don't care for the color rendering of the stone work to the right. 

Another shot taken in the same vicinity tends to render a bit better, given the meager lens attached to the Comet camera.

Two images taken at Antietam National Battlefield show how color can seem to be often be rendered in murky tones on the Comet, even with good film, when light is not perfect in a given scene. 

In hindsight, I wished I could have been closer for this capture, but with a toddler in the car on the shoulder of the road, I didn't have a lot of time to spare to perfect this one. 

Is it the Comet logo that vaguely resembles a cannonball in flight that makes this camera suddenly perk up when its time to take a photo of a cannon?  Again, my favorite image of  this roll isn't too different in context from my favorite image of the last roll! 

A classic VW should have provided a better result than this, but in hindsight, I should have taken more time with the set up of the capture as well. 

I'm not sure if camera movement or poor focus are the culprit to the blurry look to this image.

Not the most stirring subject matter perhaps, but a good chance to test focus and color rendition under full sun.  All in all, not too shabby.

Seems that scenes of about 10-15 feet away tend to render with the best center sharpness, though that sharpness is not perfectly centered.  Still, given the subject, I tend to like how this interesting scene taken in Mapleville MD rendered. 

Did I get professional caliber images from the Comet?  Of course not.  Did I expect professional caliber images from the Comet?  Of course not, and in many ways, I wouldn't have wanted such images in the first place. 

The Comet is a camera that tries to use nearly every trick in its limited employ to give the user the chance to control and coerce their image to every extent possible given its limitations.  The results of this limited flexibility aren't always predictable even after using the camera multiple times, but in many way, this unpredictability can be fun, provided you are simply using the camera as a means to have fun.  

Many of the film cameras available today as part of the Lomography movement are very similar in principle to the rather obscure Zenith Comet of 1947, employing a minimal amount of controls on focus or exposure to create an experience that provides a mix of control and experimentation to create a fun photo taking experience.  And this is precisely the feeling one gets when shooting a Zenith Comet, accompanied by a interesting sense of reverence that this odd camera may well have been an innovator of sorts that has since been mostly forgotten.  

One thing I do know is that I will certainly remember this camera is in my collection when I simply want to go out and have a bit of fun enjoying my hobby.  

Swell Reflex Too: The Minolta SR-T 200

I'm the Quirky Guy with a Camera, and I approve this message:

"In the market for a Pentax K-1000? Do you actually want to use it as a film camera, and do you have no sentimental attachment that makes you specifically want this model?  Do you actually like saving money?  Would you like a camera with nearly identical capabilities to a K-1000 at a fraction of the price?  If so, I present your camera!"

I rarely editorialize in my posts.  I tend to simply lay out my personal observations specific to particular camera model or film, present these observations along with my results, and let you, the reader, make an informed choice from the information I present.  I don't typically get into the heartfelt and often irrational positions that Camera A is "better" than Camera B so you'd better not buy the latter.

But every now and again, I notice something really off about the film world at large to which I feel I need to add a sanity check, and this is very much one of them.

One of the most iconic of 35mm film cameras of the later decades of film's prominence was the Pentax K-1000, a fairly simple 35mm SLR camera offering metered manual shooting and little else in the way of bells and whistles.  For years, it was THE standard camera for photography students and school yearbook offices, largely because it was the cheapest manual control camera available at the time.  It is a ubiquitous piece of film history as classic as a Hershey Chocolate Bar.  And it's also quite overpriced in today's market.


Examples of this very common and very basic camera are often selling for $50 and upwards. Sure there are people who used this camera decades ago clamoring to rekindle their younger years who may want one of these cameras for this very reason, though I can't see why.  I used a Pentax K-1000 for a couple of years while shooting for my college yearbook, and while I never hated it, I simply never saw much of any appeal to it, even in a day when I couldn't afford a "real" camera of my own.  Even today, as I gravitate more and more to all things film, the "K-Grand" as we often called it, has no draw to me whatsoever, particularly at the prices in today's market.  It's a camera whose popularity is a puzzle to me.

In sharp contrast to the popular K-1000 are those camera models that have been relegated to relative obscurity.  A big part of this obscurity comes from what I would call "big brother syndrome," where the model in question isn't as full featured as a more "premium" sibling, and in a market where a buyer can pay a few dollars more for the marquee model of a lineup, they almost certainly will elect to do just that.

The result is that there are often some overlooked gems out there to be had, even if they are not the most coveted models of their lineup.  They may lack some professional grade features of the era, such as mirror lock up or depth of field preview, but often contain just enough basics to still be totally versatile shooters that will handle most shooting environments.  They are often in excellent condition, and may cost a fraction of a more well known camera like the K-1000.  

In 1966, Minolta released its revolutionary SR-T lineup, pioneered by the well known SR-T 101. When used with the "MC" series lenses, cameras in this lineup enabled metering with the aperture wide open, making focusing and composition of images much easier. Production of the SR-T 101 continued for nearly 10 years, during which it was supplemented by a budget model and a premium model with suffixes 100 and 102 respectively.  In 1975, the entire lineup was given a refresh, and new names that varied with the market.  In the US, the "updated" versions were numbered with suffixes between 200 and 202.  

The SR-T 200 was still the basic variant, offering match needle based metered manual exposure, a top shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second, and not much else in the way of extras. It was a mechanical SLR camera designed for the entry level / budget market, and priced modestly below the 201 and 202 models also offered by Minolta at the time.

Today, it is not a big challenge to find working cameras across the SR-T lineup at very modest prices. They were common models made in great numbers, and they were well constructed.  Cameras like the SR-T 101 still have their adoring fans to this day, and this adoration is well deserved.  Given this adulation and affordability, it isn't tough to covet an SR-T 101.

Externally, the SR-T 200 appears quite similar to the SR-T 101, with the main visible difference being the self-timer switch on the higher end model.  Unseen here is that the depth of field preview button on the 101 will latch on and off, whereas the version on the 200 requires the user to hold it down during preview.

As a result, the SR-T 200 is often forgotten.  After all, it is the budget entry in the lineup, and as such, is oft overlooked, or thought of as the less capable stepchild of its siblings with the higher last digit. To a large degree, this oversight is really very much a shame.

I stumbled across the SR-T 200 on a whim on a Goodwill trip quite a while back.  Though I had only minimal interest in the seeming sameness that was the SLR camera offerings of the 1970's and 1980's, this camera came equipped with a smaller and slightly "left of center" Minolta 45mm lens instead of the typical 50mm lens often seen on used SLR cameras.  In addition, the camera and lens were priced at about the same price as a roll of film, so it seemed to be an item of very minimal risk. I snapped it up, only to have it sit on the shelf for months as other "quirkier" cameras took precedence over this pedestrian SLR camera.  All I could say about it for sure was that the shutter seemed to work at all speeds.

Finally, as the autumn colors entered their final weeks, I picked the SR-T 200 up from its shelf, loaded it with an adapted 675 cell, and tested the meter.  It too seemed to work, lining up more or less with expected readings in "Sunny-16" type conditions, making a very strong case for me to show this overlooked camera some long overdue love.

And if you can forgive me for sounding a bit sappy, this once orphaned camera, like only a choice few of the many I've encountered over the past couple of years, seemed to respond surprisingly receptively to this attention, performing better than I could have ever imagined. With little more than a fresh battery, the 40 year old SLR snapped through a roll of relabeled Ferrania 200 film as it were a brand new camera.  The meter was consistent and sure in its readings, and the shutter clicked through each successive frame with a comparably confident precision as it deftly worked its way through its nitrate based medium. Shooting with the SR-T 200, admittedly, carried a real joy that is often elusive with some of my quirkier devices.  There was a certain nicety in leaving the exposure worries largely aside and simply focusing, composing, and shooting.

Much of one's first impressions on anything in life are often formed by their most recent previous experiences. As such, my "fuzzies" for the SR-T 200 were largely helped by the cameras I was shooting prior to picking it up.  These included a guess-focused folder whose focus readings were off, a box camera with minimal adjustable settings, a rangefinder with limited shutter speed options, an SLR with an unreliable meter, and an AF SLR with some external LCD display issues.  This Minolta gave me the ability to focus, a working meter, and a ready ability to see through changes to shutter and aperture.  It was vintage shooting in a near perfect setting, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

Thus, my adoring impressions of the SR-T 200 are admittedly somewhat flawed.  For example, it would be great if the camera displayed shutter or aperture settings in the viewfinder, but it doesn't. An EV compensation dial would also be a nice plus given that the meter seems so solid, but is also lacking on this basic model.  In order to mimic EV compensation, the only choice is to change the film speed for your exposure, and then change it back. 

Viewfinders of the SR-T 101 (above) and SR-T 200 (below) are quite similar, with the higher end model displaying shutter speed by means of a moving gauge along the bottom.  One issue with this is that the illumination of this display comes from the viewfinder itself, leading to speeds on either end of the spectrum being less than visible in anything but the brightest of light.

Still, for my usual style of photography, the 200 does more or less just what I need it to do, and seems to do this very well.  The 45mm lens offers a nice little plus in squeezing in some desired elements in tight quarters, while not giving off a perspective that was noticeably wide in the process.  This camera also allowed me to put an older 100mm f/3.5 Rokkor lens into service for a few shots as well, and while I noticed the aperture didn't seem to properly stop down when used normally, I could manually stop the lens down with the Depth-of-Field preview button just prior to shooting, which seemed to do the task.

Regardless of how nice it was to shoot the SR-T 200, the experience would not mean much if the results from the film itself didn't dovetail with the good vibes from the camera.  Unlike many first rolls taken with other cameras, I didn't have a lot of worry about my results from the Minolta.  My main hesitation centered largely around the use of nearly 10 year old film, followed to some degree with some concerns about how steady my shots taken with the Rokkor would be, given that one hand was depressing a lever below the lens as I pressed the shutter release with the other.

These worries were largely unfounded, and I was pleased to see that I had a roll of mostly well exposed images, and further than the photos taken with the older 100mm lens were mostly keepers as well.  The positive impressions this camera gave me as I tried it out were carried through to the results. 

I started out shooting the Minolta in scenes of encroaching shadows and diminishing afternoon light in late Autumn.  The camera metered and performed admirably.

A scene with varied light portrays pretty well on the Ferrania 200 speed color negative film.

Among the more evenly lit of scenes renders with great sharpness and color through the Rokkor 45mm f/2 lens.

Another varied lighting scene that was well handled by the Minolta's CLC metering system.

Shadow details were somewhat lost in this scene, but the overall color rendition is quite nice.

A more closely focused scene shot nearly wide open at about f/2.8 gives off some excellent bokeh...

...while a stopped down scene portrays with good sharpness. 

The camera really did handle mixed light quite well.  A Fall morning in Maryland gives off the true feel of the scene.

Backlight pushed the shadow details in this scene to portray with a murky rendition: one reason why an EV compensation dial would have been nice.

One of my favorite nearby scenes, captured a year ago on Velvia.  The rendering on the Ferrania 200 isn't quite as vivid, but still very nice. 

Two shots of the same scene taken with the 45mm (above) and with the 100mm (below) in Gaithersburg, MD.  The longer lens generally was a pleasant surprise.

The 100mm didn't quite handle mixed light scenes as well as the 45mm, at least when attempting more close up material.  

In more even light, the 100mm Rokkor gives off a clean image with good sharpness and even toning throughout the image.

My attempt at "Foreground Bokeh" with the foliage didn't quite work as hoped, yet the 100mm lens still handled the overall scene quite well. 

This mild telephoto lens did well at compressing composition in scenes like this. 

A more distant scene rendered quite well, even though stopped down only minimally to about f/5.6.

This last shot with the 100mm was a hopeful favorite that turned out even better than expected.  I really like the rendering of the out of focus areas, while the composition works quite well for the branch in foreground. 

I don't aim to trash the Pentax K-1000.  Not at all.  It is a solid and well built camera that has endured nicely to this day.  However, aside from nostalgia, I can't see any reason why someone would elect to pay the money that these cameras command when equally excellent cameras can be had for 1/4 to 1/3 the price tag.

The only tangible benefits of the K-1000 over the SR-T 200 that I can determine are the ability to use the Pentax MF lenses on more modern Pentax equipment, and the presence of an actual hot shoe rather than a PC connection as with the Minolta.  However, neither of these benefits make a difference to me, and I can imagine this would be the same for the vast majority of actual users today. The SR-T 200 is thus an under-appreciated gem too quickly overshadowed by its more full featured siblings, which in itself is just as much a malady as the demand disparity between this camera and the more coveted Pentax.

I for one, will happily continue to shoot my SR-T 200.  If you are looking for quality build with a tiny price tag, you are more than welcome to join me.