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.
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.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.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.
And given that I can buy a mint Nikon F80
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?