Pentax 17: first few snapshots

[Axelwik]

But $500....

Do you think it would it be worth around $200 in 1990 dollars? $200 in 1990 is almost $500 today. This is a new camera with a warranty and support.

There were a lot of point & shoot cameras $200 and more back in the 1990s.

 

[M-88]

But $500....

is not that expensive for a brand new camera which looks more like a proper camera and less like a toy. Research and development + machinery have their cost, which must be added to the final price of the product, otherwise it's a complete financial loss. Let's hope we'll soon see a full frame version.

 

[4season]

I recently received an email from Freestyle Photo informing me that the camera was in stock. But of course by the time I checked, it had sold out again. But perhaps the initial feeding frenzy is easing.

 

[Thwyllo]

Do you think it would it be worth around $200 in 1990 dollars? $200 in 1990 is almost $500 today. This is a new camera with a warranty and support.

There were a lot of point & shoot cameras $200 and more back in the 1990s.

No I don't. Minolta can do it for half that price with AF and zoom. And given that I can buy a mint Nikon F80, for example, and a decent lens for $150-200, the idea of dropping $500 on a fixed lens, zone focussing thing like that is utterly absurd to me. Sorry but that's how it is and I'd be very surprised if much of the audience were folk who had already been seriously into film photography...which is fine, I'm just saying it's absolutely not for the likes of me.

 

[albireo]

And given that I can buy a mint Nikon F80

A completely. different. Use. Case.

Also, that F80 will come with

-no warranty
-no spare parts
-unclear usage history
-unclear lease of life for its electronics.
-sticky bits of plastics all over

By the way I used to own, and luckily sold, an F100, years ago - loads of plastic in all the wrong places. Plastic door latch that breaks, plastic metering selector that breaks, plastic rewind fork that breaks. Extremely poor design. I have never used an F80, but I bet it'll be even worse (and I speak as someone who has used electronic Nikon cameras for 25+ years)

Sorry but that's how it is and I'd be very surprised if much of the audience were folk who had already been seriously into film

Truly mindboggling.

I can buy a Rolleiflex 3.5FIII. And I have.

I can buy a 1952 Agfa Record 6x9 folder with an Apotar triplet. And I have.

I can then buy a new, freshly designed, fully supported half frame camera from Pentax, too. And I have.

Different use cases, you see?


The Pentax 17 has a great lens. As people taking actual pictures with it are showing, it's a fine photographic tool. In the right hands it can take great images.

$500 is money well spent, imho.

 

[Thwyllo]

A completely. different. Use. Case.

Also, that F80 will come with

-no warranty
-no spare parts
-unclear usage history
-unclear lease of life for its electronics.
-sticky bits of plastics all over

By the way I used to own, a luckily sold, an F100, years ago - loads of plastic in all the wrong places. Plastic door latch that breaks, plastic metering selector that breaks, plastic rewind fork that breaks. Extremely poor design. I have never used an F80, but I bet it'll be even worse (and I speak as someone who has used electronic Nikon cameras for 25+ years)




Truly mindboggling.

I can buy a Rolleiflex 3.5FIII. And I have.

I can buy a 1952 Agfa Record 6x9 folder with an Apotar triplet. And I have.

I can then buy a new, freshly designed, fully supported half frame camera from Pentax, too. And I have.

Different use cases, you see?


The Pentax 17 has a great lens. As people taking actual pictures with it are showing, it's a fine photographic tool. In the right hands it can take great images.

$500 is money well spent, imho.

Your criticism of the entire late range of Nikon film cameras is bizarre but let's leave it at that. As for the rest, I'm glad you've got the money to burn supporting Pentax employees. Personally I'd rather spend $500 on interesting vintage lenses thanks. Chacun pour soi.

 

[albireo]

Your criticism of the entire late range of Nikon film cameras is bizarre but let's leave it at that.

I don't find it bizzarre at all. I'm a first hand user of many late Nikon cameras. My Nikon F90X is a much better built camera than my F100. I'm allowed to say it as I've owned both. I still use the F90X, beautiful underrated film camera.

 

[Chan Tran]

No I don't. Minolta can do it for half that price with AF and zoom. And given that I can buy a mint Nikon F80, for example, and a decent lens for $150-200, the idea of dropping $500 on a fixed lens, zone focussing thing like that is utterly absurd to me. Sorry but that's how it is and I'd be very surprised if much of the audience were folk who had already been seriously into film photography...which is fine, I'm just saying it's absolutely not for the likes of me.

You can buy a mint Nikon F5 for less than $500 but it's not new. New does mean quite a bit.

 

[halfaman]

No I don't. Minolta can do it for half that price with AF and zoom. And given that I can buy a mint Nikon F80, for example, and a decent lens for $150-200, the idea of dropping $500 on a fixed lens, zone focussing thing like that is utterly absurd to me. Sorry but that's how it is and I'd be very surprised if much of the audience were folk who had already been seriously into film photography...which is fine, I'm just saying it's absolutely not for the likes of me.

A made in China, manual and full of plastic camera like Lomo LC-A is $300 (LC-A Wide $400), the new Rollei Mint is going to be around $750. I don't see $500 for Pentax 17 anything absurd or overpriced.

If the target is to compete in price with the second hand market, we can forget about having any new serious camera for the next 20-30 years. And then probably nobody will know how to build one. Specially in 35 mm or smaller formats, where there is still an big stock of used cameras for the price of peanuts.

 

[Chan Tran]

A made in China, manual and full of plastic camera like Lomo LC-A is $300 (LC-A Wide $400), the new Rollei Mint is going to be around $750. I don't see $500 for Pentax 17 anything absurd or overpriced.

If the target is to compete in price with the second hand market, we can forget about having any new serious camera for the next 20-30 years. And then probably nobody will know how to build one. Specially in 35 mm or smaller formats, where there is still an big stock of used cameras for the price of peanuts.

It's possible to make those cameras a lot cheaper if you can sell a lot but you can't and you don't have the economy of scale.

 

[Axelwik]

No I don't. Minolta can do it for half that price with AF and zoom. And given that I can buy a mint Nikon F80, for example, and a decent lens for $150-200, the idea of dropping $500 on a fixed lens, zone focussing thing like that is utterly absurd to me. Sorry but that's how it is and I'd be very surprised if much of the audience were folk who had already been seriously into film photography...which is fine, I'm just saying it's absolutely not for the likes of me.

Then you shouldn't buy one. And at the same time don't put it down because YOU don't like it. Obviously many people do like it.

 

[xkaes]

I hope Pentax sells a million of them, but I don't see how they can compete with the millions of used cameras that are smaller and offer more features for under $50 -- and who cares if it breaks? Just buy another one or two or three!

 

[Thwyllo]

Then you shouldn't buy one. And at the same time don't put it down because YOU don't like it. Obviously many people do like it.

So hang on....people are allowed to big it up but not to put it down for it's obvious shortcomings?

And I see nobody has commented on the much cheaper Minolta?

As I've already said, each to their own....it's definitely not for me so how about we leave it at that?

 

[Chan Tran]

So hang on....people are allowed to big it up but not to put it down for it's obvious shortcomings?

And I see nobody has commented on the much cheaper Minolta?

As I've already said, each to their own....it's definitely not for me so how about we leave it at that?

Which Minolta? Can you provide a link?

 

[xkaes]

I'm still waiting for some comparison shots/tests versus other (new or old) half-frames. No shortage of options, of course, but I know that will take some time -- and it's not something I can do. I'd love to compare it to my Ricoh Caddy or Olympus Pen D3 or Yashica Samuirai Z.

 

[cerber0s]

I think they correctly identified the market segment for which they designed the Pentax 17. The film resurgence is driven by people aged 18-30, and all are not interested in manual exposure, or any control over exposure for that matter. They just want a simple point and shoot to show their photos online. The more people that buy this camera, the better it is for all of us.

 

[xkaes]

The film resurgence is driven by people aged 18-30, and all are not interested in manual exposure, or any control over exposure for that matter.

Seems odd that Pentax added different exposure modes -- and even +/- 2 control. Very strange.

 

[cerber0s]

Seems odd that Pentax added different exposure modes -- and even +/- 2 control. Very strange.

I assume you’re being sarcastic? If not’ I’ll happily tell you why I don’t think it’s odd at all

 

[George Mann]

I don't find it bizzarre at all. I'm a first hand user of many late Nikon cameras. My Nikon F90X is a much better built camera than my F100. I'm allowed to say it as I've owned both. I still use the F90X, beautiful underrated film camera.

I agree with this 100 gazillion percent. The F100 is an overspecced toy, not a serious tool.

The F90x is a sufficient tool for any job.

 

[Chan Tran]

I think they correctly identified the market segment for which they designed the Pentax 17. The film resurgence is driven by people aged 18-30, and all are not interested in manual exposure, or any control over exposure for that matter. They just want a simple point and shoot to show their photos online. The more people that buy this camera, the better it is for all of us.

I know the camera isn't for me as I have enough film camera but if it increase the number of people who shoot film it's a real good thing. We need people to use film so film company can continue making film.

 

[cerber0s]

I know the camera isn't for me as I have enough film camera but if it increase the number of people who shoot film it's a real good thing. We need people to use film so film company can continue making film.

Right on!

 

[Axelwik]

So hang on....people are allowed to big it up but not to put it down for it's obvious shortcomings?

And I see nobody has commented on the much cheaper Minolta?

As I've already said, each to their own....it's definitely not for me so how about we leave it at that?

Maybe I'm not good at searching, but I don't see a new Minolta camera anywhere. Does it have the same features as the Pentax; half frame etc?

I thought Minolta went out of business 20 years ago.

 

[Chan Tran]

Maybe I'm not good at searching, but I don't see a new Minolta camera anywhere. Does it have the same features as the Pentax; half frame etc?

I thought Minolta went out of business 20 years ago.

The company Elite Brands bought the Minolta trademark from Konica Minolta and they are selling cameras under the name Minolta. However, they only have digital cameras and no film camera.

Cameras — Minolta Digital

www.minoltadigital.com

Correction The JMM Properties just filed a claim for the Minolta trademark as it has not been used for so long. So the trademark was granted to JMM Properties which in turn license it to Elite Brands. So Konica Minolta has nothing to do with it at all.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I found a supplier (filmcamera.co.uk; registered address in Sheffield) which currently advertises a 'BRAND NEW' Minolta Riva zoom 70 for 130 UK quid; but if you open the specifications it is described as used, and you can see in the (one) product photo that the camera looks ok, but its instruction book is old and tatty. The site has a mix of cameras advertised as used and ones they call new. I suppose some of these may be unused old stock, but they still aren't new in the way the Pentax is, and I'm surprised nobody from trading standards has been to talk to them about this. I think this particular camera is from sometime around 2000.

 

[xkaes]

The company Elite Brands bought the Minolta trademark from Konica Minolta and they are selling cameras under the name Minolta. However, they only have digital cameras and no film camera.

I'll add that Sony bought Minolta's photographic division -- not the rights to the Minolta name -- and simply continued Minolta's line of Maxxum DSLR cameras & lenses under the Sony label. So the REAL Minolta photo gear is still being made.