If this camera were still in production, I'd buy one in a heartbeat!
If they make one today it would cost more than $500. Could be $1000.
If they make one today it would cost more than $500. Could be $1000.
That's what they cost when they were new, back in the late '70s and early '80 - allowing for inflation (~USD150 then = ~USD600 today) - so the maths checks out. Improvements in automated mass production would likely be negated by the much smaller potential market for a new film camera, admittedly.
Then again, if the Pentax 17 had been a sexy, compact aperture-priority full-frame rangefinder with a fixed 35mm/f2.8 lens but with, say, an exposure compensation dial, a light meter that'll go from ISO12 to 6400 and a slightly larger viewfinder with a fresh rangefinder patch, it likely would have sold way more units, even if the price had been closer to a grand. The XA is one of the few 'hype' cameras that's still (a) affordable-ish and (b) actually worth those prices - mine gets regular use - but there's still opportunity to improve the formula for today's film shooter market.
I still use it regularly, but not as a notebook as used to be the case (my smartphone handles that job nowadays):
View attachment 400119
View attachment 400120
Live gig, Berlin, Germany in 1999, film was KODAK SUPRA 800
For that type of pictures I don't use film.
In 1999, you had to.
Yes and that's the one type of photos I think digital excels.
For that type of pictures I don't use film.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?