Pentax announces that they're working on new film cameras!

[Huss]

People overlook the Contax TVS, a fantastic P&S that can still be had for under $500. Mine was wonderful until it went haywire, but I understand that they can now be repaired when that happens.

I had a TVS III which was great if it focused correctly. It seemed to miss focus every 3rd or 4th shot. So I got rid of it. I actually much preferred the v1 or v2 because the trap door on the v3 was just a dumb thing that made the camera slower to use.

 

[BradS]

...a rampant hype machine...

Yes, this is the key. The influence of YouTube celebrities has elevated the price of a select few film cameras to astronomical levels. A few that come to mind, Contax T2, Olympus Stylus Epic (aka MJu 2), Leica M6, Ricoh GR1v, Mamiya 7, etc...

Just as Leica re-introduced the Leica M6 to take advantage of that free marketing hype, Ricoh/Pentax would be smart to also take advantage of the hype surrounding it's own GR1v and Pentax K-1000.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Yes, this is the key. The influence of YouTube celebrities has elevated the price of a select few film cameras to astronomical levels. A few that come to mind, Contax T2, Olympus Stylus Epic (aka MuJu 2), Leica M6, Ricoh GR1v, Mamiya 7, etc...

Just as Leica re-introduced the Leica M6 to take advantage of that free marketing hype, Ricoh/Pentax would wise to also take advatage of the hype surrounding it's own GR1v or Pentax K-1000.

Agree for most of them but Mamiya 7. That one has always been expensive.

Marcelo

 

[BradS]

Agree for most of them but Mamiya 7. That one has always been expensive.

Marcelo

and today, like the other examples mentioned, used ones seem to sell for as much or more than they did when new - even when adjusted for inflation.

and besides, it's not really relevant to the point.

 

[Roger Cole]

The jazz club is dim. It doesn't even have powerful spotlights - and there is a set of bright red uplighters *behind* the performers making exposure quite tricky. And it is perfectly reasonable to take photos there at 1/30 or 1/15 f2.8 at 1600.

Regarding DoF. Yes, bokeh is currently in fashion but the problem with auto focus especially on smaller cameras is that it doesn't always work that accurately. Adding a bit more DoF really helps here. If the autofocus is out by a foot, it doesn't matter if you're shooting at f4 or smaller.

I really don't see a super fast lens as being a big selling point for the market that Pentax have identified. I know some of these people and talk with camera shop staff around the UK. Not just my local but when I take a trip I always pop into any old style camera shops and talk. People coming new to photography either want an SLR of the K1000 type, or a decent P&S. Either way they're not bothered about fast lenses. No doubt if they make a K-mount SLR in the future there will be plenty of fast lenses available for it anyway.

There's something very different about your "dim" jazz club and the few clubs I've shot in. Last time I did that was with TMZ at 3200 and I was having to shoot at 1/30th, some areas 1/15th, at f/1.8.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

and today, like the other examples mentioned, used ones seem to sell for as much or more than they did when new - even when adjusted for inflation.

and besides, it's not really relevant to the point.

Yep not really relevant for this discussion I suppose.

 

[Helge]

Retinas jumped in price?

Retina IIIC used to be cheap as chips. Then some review started a hype wave.
It’s really not any better than other contemporary rangefinders.
Part of the original recommendation was that it was cheap and somewhat undervalued.

People have a way of overlooking that crucial point: “Good for the price”.

Similarly Mju II used to be good for the price. Today it’s wildly overpriced and overhyped for what it is, and its inherent reliably as an electronic camera.

 

[Helge]

There's something very different about your "dim" jazz club and the few clubs I've shot in. Last time I did that was with TMZ at 3200 and I was having to shoot at 1/30th, some areas 1/15th, at f/1.8.

+100.
Helge’s first law: There is always a lot less light than you think.

 

[swchris]

A dim jazz club is not so dim if you can get away with that speed even on 1600 film with a 4 - 2.8 aperture.

“They” are are happy because that’s what’s there. Don’t equate availability and buying what’s there with being satisfied.


There’s nothing to set up if it’s auto focus. And people love shallow depth of field. It’s completely different from what they used to on the phone, but associate it with the look from big sensor cameras.


Being able to shoot in what most people perceive as normal indoor light without flash, is not considered a premium feature anymore.

The desire to look like a “real” camera is partly what made the AF35ML be a little oversized (not a lot compared to other similar 2.8 models though). The filter ring, manual ISO slider and photocell was also a factor.
With a retractable lens, retro focus design and removal of the above kinks, it would absolutely be possible to slim a 1.9 40mm lens down to something only marginally less pocketable than a 2.8.

A better way to be able to take pictures in lower light would be if the film manufacturers would develop a film with more ISO that TMax/Delta3200....

 

[Sirius Glass]

A better way to be able to take pictures in lower light would be if the film manufacturers would develop a film with more ISO that TMax/Delta3200....

For now invest in a good carbon fiber tripod. I like and use Induro tripods which have interchangeable parts with other manufacturers.

 

[Film-Niko]

A better way to be able to take pictures in lower light would be if the film manufacturers would develop a film with more ISO that TMax/Delta3200....

If that would be so easy they would have done it long ago during the "film boom times".
If I remember right, T-Max 3200 was introduced in 1988, and Delta 3200 in 1998.
Ron Mowrey had explained here on photrio that getting higher in film speed would be very costly, and you would have to make some bigger compromises. Compromises lots of photographers probably won't accept.
And Delta 3200 and TMZ are already niche products with very small sales volume. A higher speed emulsion would be certainly an even more niche, lower sale volume product.

Nevertheless we have today much better low light options than in 1988 when TMZ was introduced:
1. Much better lens quality with lenses with 1.4 or even 1.2 (1.0) open apertures: The performance at open aperture with current, modern lenses (for 35mm SLRs and rangefinders) is much, much better compared to the open aperture performance of lens designs from the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies.
The modern, improved lenses offer very good sharpness and contrast at open aperture. The older lenses have to be stopped down for 1-2 stops for a similar performance.
2. Much better fill-in flash options and performance: If you need ISO 6400 or more, use D3200 / TMZ in combination with a modern camera and flash: The needed 1-2 stops more light can be achieved easily in fill-in flash mode, and the pictures will look excellent and very natural. If done right, you won't see that a flash was used for lighting the scene, it will look completely natural.
3. Lenses with Image Stabilisation / Vibration Reduction will give you 2-4 more stops.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If that would be so easy they would have done it long ago during the "film boom times".
If I remember right, T-Max 3200 was introduced in 1988, and Delta 3200 in 1998.
Ron Mowrey had explained here on photrio that getting higher in film speed would be very costly, and you would have to make some bigger compromises. Compromises lots of photographers probably won't accept.
And Delta 3200 and TMZ are already niche products with very small sales volume. A higher speed emulsion would be certainly an even more niche, lower sale volume product.

Nevertheless we have today much better low light options than in 1988 when TMZ was introduced:
1. Much better lens quality with lenses with 1.4 or even 1.2 (1.0) open apertures: The performance at open aperture with current, modern lenses (for 35mm SLRs and rangefinders) is much, much better compared to the open aperture performance of lens designs from the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies.
The modern, improved lenses offer very good sharpness and contrast at open aperture. The older lenses have to be stopped down for 1-2 stops for a similar performance.
2. Much better fill-in flash options and performance: If you need ISO 6400 or more, use D3200 / TMZ in combination with a modern camera and flash: The needed 1-2 stops more light can be achieved easily in fill-in flash mode, and the pictures will look excellent and very natural. If done right, you won't see that a flash was used for lighting the scene, it will look completely natural.
3. Lenses with Image Stabilisation / Vibration Reduction will give you 2-4 more stops.

Especially when I was taking a lot of low light level and night photography, I would strive to buy the largest aperture lens I could afford in each focal length.

 

[gone]

Trust me, a fully mechanical film camera does not take a rocket scientist to make it. And yes, I do know what I'm taking about. I was a machinist for many years before getting into racing cars, and have the trophies and awards of excellence on the wall. A good machinist/race engineer can make just about anything. You can make an entire car using reverse engineering, it happens all the time w/ high tech race cars, especially in F1, and all you really need are the photos. Race cars are many, many times more complicated, and built to much better tolerances than a film camera. They have to be, people's lives are on the line.

There is absolutely no reason someone couldn't take one of the simpler mechanical cameras apart, use an old fashioned micrometer and other basic machine shop tools, and make a similar camera. The stamped parts (which are a cheap way to mass produce anything) can be made w/ even better tolerances if it's a one off prototype. Today, many of the parts could either be 3-D printed or injection molded w/ today's plastics. Optics could be easily measured, and the results fed into a CAD machine and ground automatically.

Come on people, you can make a camera out of a shoe box or a beer can! But all this is besides the point, and way over the head of someone who has never done any of it. The idea here, as I see it, is that a modern camera manufacturer is saying they will build and introduce several models of new 35mm SLR film cameras. That I will believe when I see it, but that's just my opinion. The rest of what I wrote is based on actual experiential knowledge, and a ton of people out there are much more more capable and experienced than I am.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Trust me, a fully mechanical film camera does not take a rocket scientist to make it. And yes, I do know what I'm taking about. I was a machinist for many years before getting into racing cars, and have the trophies and awards of excellence on the wall. A good machinist/race engineer can make just about anything. You can make an entire car using reverse engineering, it happens all the time w/ high tech race cars, especially in F1, and all you really need are the photos. Race cars are many, many times more complicated, and built to much better tolerances than a film camera. They have to be, people's lives are on the line.

There is absolutely no reason someone couldn't take one of the simpler mechanical cameras apart, use an old fashioned micrometer and other basic machine shop tools, and make a similar camera. The stamped parts (which are a cheap way to mass produce anything) can be made w/ even better tolerances if it's a one off prototype. Today, many of the parts could either be 3-D printed or injection molded w/ today's plastics. Optics could be easily measured, and the results fed into a CAD machine and ground automatically.

Come on people, you can make a camera out of a shoe box or a beer can! But all this is besides the point, and way over the head of someone who has never done any of it. The idea here, as I see it, is that a modern camera manufacturer is saying they will build and introduce several models of new 35mm SLR film cameras. That I will believe when I see it, but that's just my opinion. The rest of what I wrote is based on actual experiential knowledge, and a ton of people out there are much more more capable and experienced than I am.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I would buy used camera equipment which is in good or better condition.

 

[Craig]

An F1 car is a very different beast than a camera. An F1 car doesn't have to be sold at a profit, while at the same time competing for sales with a used car that's 30 years old. Similarly, an F1 car needs to only last a season at best, not decades.

Similarly, the skills to build cars are current, the knowledge to make mechanical shutters is obsolete and hasn't been used in decades and the companies that used to make them are gone. Try grinding a crankshaft to precision tolerances if it hasn't been done in 30 years and the machinery to do so no longer exists. That's far more difficult to do on a commercially viable basis than dropping by your local crank regrinder.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Trust me, a fully mechanical film camera does not take a rocket scientist to make it. And yes, I do know what I'm taking about. I was a machinist for many years before getting into racing cars, and have the trophies and awards of excellence on the wall. A good machinist/race engineer can make just about anything. You can make an entire car using reverse engineering, it happens all the time w/ high tech race cars, especially in F1, and all you really need are the photos. Race cars are many, many times more complicated, and built to much better tolerances than a film camera. They have to be, people's lives are on the line.

There is absolutely no reason someone couldn't take one of the simpler mechanical cameras apart, use an old fashioned micrometer and other basic machine shop tools, and make a similar camera. The stamped parts (which are a cheap way to mass produce anything) can be made w/ even better tolerances if it's a one off prototype. Today, many of the parts could either be 3-D printed or injection molded w/ today's plastics. Optics could be easily measured, and the results fed into a CAD machine and ground automatically.

Come on people, you can make a camera out of a shoe box or a beer can! But all this is besides the point, and way over the head of someone who has never done any of it. The idea here, as I see it, is that a modern camera manufacturer is saying they will build and introduce several models of new 35mm SLR film cameras. That I will believe when I see it, but that's just my opinion. The rest of what I wrote is based on actual experiential knowledge, and a ton of people out there are much more more capable and experienced than I am.

And I suppose that enginner would work for free? Remember that a full mechanical camera may have hundreds of parts, many of those most likely arent made anymore since they are obsolete. They would have to be custom made. You will need to make enough of them to made it profitable.

No one said they are impossible to be made. Problem is how to made them in a cheap enought way to make a business making them.

To relate it to your example, I dont see anyone churning cheap Volkswagen bettles that had been reverse enginnenered.

Marcelo

 

[Sirius Glass]

Trust me, a fully mechanical film camera does not take a rocket scientist to make it. And yes, I do know what I'm taking about. I was a machinist for many years before getting into racing cars, and have the trophies and awards of excellence on the wall. A good machinist/race engineer can make just about anything. You can make an entire car using reverse engineering, it happens all the time w/ high tech race cars, especially in F1, and all you really need are the photos. Race cars are many, many times more complicated, and built to much better tolerances than a film camera. They have to be, people's lives are on the line.

There is absolutely no reason someone couldn't take one of the simpler mechanical cameras apart, use an old fashioned micrometer and other basic machine shop tools, and make a similar camera. The stamped parts (which are a cheap way to mass produce anything) can be made w/ even better tolerances if it's a one off prototype. Today, many of the parts could either be 3-D printed or injection molded w/ today's plastics. Optics could be easily measured, and the results fed into a CAD machine and ground automatically.

Come on people, you can make a camera out of a shoe box or a beer can! But all this is besides the point, and way over the head of someone who has never done any of it. The idea here, as I see it, is that a modern camera manufacturer is saying they will build and introduce several models of new 35mm SLR film cameras. That I will believe when I see it, but that's just my opinion. The rest of what I wrote is based on actual experiential knowledge, and a ton of people out there are much more more capable and experienced than I am.

There is a big difference between possible, probable, and likely to happen.

 

[Cholentpot]

And I suppose that enginner would work for free? Remember that a full mechanical camera may have hundreds of parts, many of those most likely arent made anymore since they are obsolete. They would have to be custom made. You will need to make enough of them to made it profitable.

No one said they are impossible to be made. Problem is how to made them in a cheap enought way to make a business making them.

To relate it to your example, I dont see anyone churning cheap Volkswagen bettles that had been reverse enginnenered.

Marcelo

A replica Beetle would sell like hotcakes. Can't do it though due to modern safety rules and such.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A replica Beetle would sell like hotcakes. Can't do it though due to modern safety rules and such.

Actually the market died years ago and VW had trouble getting rid of the last of them.

 

[Cholentpot]

Actually the market died years ago and VW had trouble getting rid of the last of them.

I remember when it happened. And it was so long ago that Beetles are cool again.

 

[cmacd123]

Sure it is posible to make say a one off reverse engineered K100, or Ricoh KR-5 but how many thousands of dollars would it cost. (I only metion the KR-5 as it is a rugged camera with a square shutter and feature wise is comparable to a K-1000 except for the lack of slower speeds. And is at least 20 years newer design than the K-1000)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I remember when it happened. And it was so long ago that Beetles are cool again.

My family owned a 1957 VW and it was never cool, unless it is buried under 200 meter under the snow in Siberia and it still would not be cool.

 

[Cholentpot]

My family owned a 1957 VW and it was never cool, unless it is buried under 200 meter under the snow in Siberia and it still would not be cool.

If the K1000 can be cool again, a Beetle can do it too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If the K1000 can be cool again, a Beetle can do it too.

No the K1000 is much better and should not be used in the same paragraph or even the same page at that piece of junk.

 

[Auer]

sixfourfive please, thanks