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

[redbandit]

Fuji or is it olympus that has been turing basic 1970s style SLR bodies into DIGITAL cameras last decade..

We KNOW the modern components will work, and they undoutedly have surplus parts.

 

[Helge]

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 vast gulf between a one-off and even making a few of something and then making thousands and millions.
There is an insurmountable amount of stuff that can go wrong in a production line.

What Ford did right with his T model was insisting on simplicity. The basic Ford T is under 500 parts. Can be taken apart on a barn floor and put together in a couple of days. But assembly in the line took 1.5 hours.
Then he stuck to his guns with that line. Perhaps too long. But an assembly line and the supplies connected to it is a precious thing. Once it’s up it’s hard to change and very expensive to reestablish once decommissioned.

Not a lot has happened to mass production of industrial products since the 70s and 80s. What made sense then, makes the same sense now.
3D printers and CAD is made entirely too much of and was available to varying degrees back then too.

 

[Helge]

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.

Faster film wouldn’t so much be expensive to produce, as it would be hard to store. On shelves and warehouses and in shipping.
We’d need either much faster consumption, which wouldn’t be impossible. Or hypering at the user end just before use, and fast development.
Think of the problem with long exposures on digital. Noise and fog builds up, even with no light.

1.2 and 1.4 lenses has been around “forever”, and they haven’t really been improved that much.

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

A small table tripod is far better for something like a bar. Can be held to walls, put on tables and chairs and even your upper chest. Will allow speeds down to 1/15 if you time it right.

 

[summicron1]

how well have the electronics held up? CAN you get the electronics repaired?

The electronics have held up better than on my Leica R3 and R4 have. The N90 is a step below the pro Nikon F5 or whatever was around at the same time. Someone up above called it a "plastic blob" but I disagree.

I acquired an N90 a cupla years ago and it really has become my go-to camera for grandchild shooting when speed is of the essense. I had been playing with early Canon auto-focus EOS cameras and just didn't like them.

The N90 is fast, very accurate and superbly reliable even in "program" auto exposure mode. I was able to find a nice range of auto focus lenses to go with it -- ALL the Nikon autofocus film gear is dirt cheap these days -- and really enjoy it, and this is a guy who still hauls around Leicas a lot.

If pentax can come out with something like the N90 it will have a good camera.

 

[summicron1]

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.

Recreating a Leica I -- with no rangefinder and no slow speeds, fully mechanical, might be easy but nobody would buy it. Pentax, I am guessing, wants something more sophisticated and mechanically complex.

You should look up the history of the 4 by 5 "point and shoot" Travelwide camera some guys tried to sell on Kickstarter about 7 years ago.. The idea was to make a simple, light 4 by 5 camera that you could carry around with the 90 or 65 mm lens you supplied for it and use it as a kind of snap-shooter.

So basically, we're talking a body with a focusing helical and a lens mount and a film back using sheet film holder, all of it technology that has been around very literally 100 years. How hard could it be?

Damn near impossible, as it turned out. They had problems with parts, with supplies, with design, with light leaks, with manufacturing, with everything. They clammed up and quit answering people asking where their damn camera was. It went more than a year over time and way over budget and when they finally delivered the first cameras they said they were never, ever, doing that again so here's your damn camera leave us alone.

I suspect Pentax has better resources for this project, but it will still be complex. You may be a machinist, and I am supremely confident you could build a lovely camera as a one-off, but they do this for a living.

 

[summicron1]

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.

I had a 62 Beetle and it was ALWAYS cool -- or should I say cold. The heaters in those things were total junk.

 

[Agulliver]

Agree with everything people say about making a one-off functional mechanical or electromechanical camera is possible. But creating something that can be sold as a viable product that will shift at least enough units to make back the investment in it's development is another kettle of fish entirely. I used to know people who machined parts for vintage cars in their home workshops. They did fantastic work but were not interested in selling or making any kind of profit. They'd take materials supplied by a friend who needed a part and then spend a week or two making a part, not asking for any labour costs because they were doing this for fellow members of a vintage car community.

Regarding low light photography, didn't Ron Mowray say that Kodak did come up with a 12800 ISO film or somesuch but it had to be frozen or refrigerated until use and even then had a short shelf life etc. It wasn't viable for amateurs or even most pros. Additionally, photography in what I still say is a dim jazz club (or at night, or in night clubs or whatever) may be what I do every week....but it's a niche within a niche. The fact that I can push HP5 or use Delta 3200 or TMAX 3200 is sufficient. Ultra fast lenses would also have practically no DOF which would mean focus was super critical. Not necessarily easy in the dark.
Pentax probably know better than any of us what it takes. If it really were easy, then someone would have done it already. Or one of the several crowd-funded attempts would have succeeded. Remember the Reflex film SLR a few years ago? If it really were as easy as our machinist friend believes, we'd already have something better than the Holga/DIana clones, or Kodak/Reto plastic camera. They have their place and I'm not sufficient of a snob to trash them even if they're of no use to me.

 

[Henning Serger]

Agree with everything people say about making a one-off functional mechanical or electromechanical camera is possible. But creating something that can be sold as a viable product that will shift at least enough units to make back the investment in it's development is another kettle of fish entirely.

Yes.
But the good news is that the needed ROI is certainly possible with the first three mentioned camera types in their "road map":

1. The first camera type they are evaluating with highest priority is a small, compact AF P&S camera. Probably one like the former Pentax Espio mini, Olympus Mju-II (Stylus Epic) or Yashica T4 / T5.
These cameras are extremely popular on the used market, and the used prices now are much higher than the former new prices at the time when the cameras were discontinued.
A camera of that class in good condition has been recently in the 300-400€ range on the used market.

I am convinced that a new camera in that class could be a success if it offers not only being new, and available with a guarantee, but also with 2-4 improvements and "unique selling points". So that you have definitely not only a new, but also a more capable camera than the used cameras.
One of such better features / improved capabilities could for example be a kind of bad weather resistance capability. That the camera can be used in a slight rain, being splash-water proved, and at the beach, resist sand. Pentax has a lot of know-how in that regard, as one of their strengths has been for years to make their cameras wheather resistant.

If such a camera with some improvements would be offered at about 500€, it would be a hit. And considering the possible unit volume I think that price could be realistic.

2. The second camera on their road map is a high-end compact 35mm AF camera. Ricoh had produced exactly that in the past with the famous GR1 / GR1V. The design is already there. So the needed efforts at least in design / construction are manageable. Maybe even some parts of the current Ricoh GR digital can be used (e.g. exposure metering).

3. AF film SLR: From a technical point of view, that would probably be the easiest model to design. Because most of the essential parts are already there and in current production with the Pentax DSLRs.
Pentax has its current 35mm/FF K1-II. And probably that model will be replaced soon by its successor K1-III.
From that model the following main parts could be used for an excellent film SLR:
- the prism
- the whole shutter unit
- the whole mirror box with mirror and mechanics
- the AF system
- the metering system
- the mount.

All that are the parts / systems of a film SLR, which need the most sophisticated design and effort. But all of that will be already there!
The use in two different models - digital and film - will reduce costs significantly.
New design is only needed for the body, film chamber and film transport moter. None of that is difficult in design.

And that camera on a K1-III base would be much, much better than all of the former Pentax AF film SLRs, with many unique selling points in comparison.

That this approach of common design and sharing parts of a DSLR and film SLR is working great was demonstrated by Nikon in the past with the D2x and F6, which have been such "sister models".

4. Full mechanical SLR. That would indeed be more difficult as much less sharing of parts is possible. And that is certainly the reson why Pentax has put that camera at the end of their "priority list", road map.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[redbandit]

Yes.
But the good news is that the needed ROI is certainly possible with the first three mentioned camera types in their "road map":

1. The first camera type they are evaluating with highest priority is a small, compact AF P&S camera. Probably one like the former Pentax Espio mini, Olympus Mju-II (Stylus Epic) or Yashica T4 / T5.
These cameras are extremely popular on the used market, and the used prices now are much higher than the former new prices at the time when the cameras were discontinued.
A camera of that class in good condition has been recently in the 300-400€ range on the used market.

I am convinced that a new camera in that class could be a success if it offers not only being new, and available with a guarantee, but also with 2-4 improvements and "unique selling points". So that you have definitely not only a new, but also a more capable camera than the used cameras.
One of such better features / improved capabilities could for example be a kind of bad weather resistance capability. That the camera can be used in a slight rain, being splash-water proved, and at the beach, resist sand. Pentax has a lot of know-how in that regard, as one of their strengths has been for years to make their cameras wheather resistant.

If such a camera with some improvements would be offered at about 500€, it would be a hit. And considering the possible unit volume I think that price could be realistic.

2. The second camera on their road map is a high-end compact 35mm AF camera. Ricoh had produced exactly that in the past with the famous GR1 / GR1V. The design is already there. So the needed efforts at least in design / construction are manageable. Maybe even some parts of the current Ricoh GR digital can be used (e.g. exposure metering).

3. AF film SLR: From a technical point of view, that would probably be the easiest model to design. Because most of the essential parts are already there and in current production with the Pentax DSLRs.
Pentax has its current 35mm/FF K1-II. And probably that model will be replaced soon by its successor K1-III.
From that model the following main parts could be used for an excellent film SLR:
- the prism
- the whole shutter unit
- the whole mirror box with mirror and mechanics
- the AF system
- the metering system
- the mount.

All that are the parts / systems of a film SLR, which need the most sophisticated design and effort. But all of that will be already there!
The use in two different models - digital and film - will reduce costs significantly.
New design is only needed for the body, film chamber and film transport moter. None of that is difficult in design.

And that camera on a K1-III base would be much, much better than all of the former Pentax AF film SLRs, with many unique selling points in comparison.

That this approach of common design and sharing parts of a DSLR and film SLR is working great was demonstrated by Nikon in the past with the D2x and F6, which have been such "sister models".

4. Full mechanical SLR. That would indeed be more difficult as much less sharing of parts is possible. And that is certainly the reson why Pentax has put that camera at the end of their "priority list", road map.

Best regards,
Henning

4. full mechanical, actually is teh EASIEST to do, they have decades of design for them, from the ME , MX, k1000, its ALL ready DESIGNED.

THe only thing they would have to do is take the back off of a current production DSLR,, remove the guts, and install a standard film take up for it.

 

[koraks]

THe only thing they would have to do

You might want to read back in the first few pages where the issues with this have been addressed.

the ME , MX, k1000, its ALL ready DESIGNED.

And it's all lost in time.

take the back off of a current production DSLR,, remove the guts, and install a standard film take up for it.

LOL. Yeah. That would be swell.

 

[redbandit]

4. full mechanical, actually is teh EASIEST to do, they have decades of design for them, from the ME , MX, k1000, its ALL ready DESIGNED.

THe only thing they would have to do is take the back off of a current production DSLR,, remove the guts, and install a standard film take up for it.

remember, CANON designed the EOS Kiss/Rebel G became the body used for ALL DSLR until they started making mirrorless, and i THINK one or two mirrorless cameras copied the general body.

 

[redbandit]

You might want to read back in the first few pages where the issues with this have been addressed.



And it's all lost in time.



LOL. Yeah. That would be swell.

As explained on countless posts across teh inter web, the company called Pentax still owns, and possess ALL enginerring drawings, blue prints, for EVERY camera produced by Ricoh/Pentax.

And they still have guys who at least were working as engineers when they still made the K1000

 

[armadsen]

4. full mechanical, actually is teh EASIEST to do, they have decades of design for them, from the ME , MX, k1000, its ALL ready DESIGNED.

THe only thing they would have to do is take the back off of a current production DSLR,, remove the guts, and install a standard film take up for it.

remember, CANON designed the EOS Kiss/Rebel G became the body used for ALL DSLR until they started making mirrorless, and i THINK one or two mirrorless cameras copied the general body.

None of those are fully mechanical, nor are any DSLRs ever made. Fully mechanical means it works without a battery. That is, shutter timing, shutter, focus mechanism, aperture control, etc. is not done using electronics, motors, solenoids, etc. Many, many film cameras were fully mechanical, but not a single digital camera ever has been (or could be, for very obvious reasons).

If you slapped a film transport in the back of a DSLR, you'd have a decidedly not fully mechanical film camera.
The only (serious) fully mechanical, non-large format* cameras in production today, as far as I know, are the Leica M-A, MP, and M6 (and the MP and M6 have a coupled light meter, so one could nitpick whether they're truly fully mechanical).

*Even with large format, where there are quite a few cameras still in production, my understanding is that no one is making large format shutters anymore, with Copal and Compur out of the business. And the shutter in a large format camera is the most mechanically complicated part of the whole thing.

 

[koraks]

As explained on countless posts across teh inter web

Go back in this thread and read why having engineering drawings actually isn't the end all to this. I'm not going to rehash what's been said on this on pages 1 & 2; just give it a read.

Also, don't mistake a similar outward appearance for a meaningful degree of component commonality. Your example of Canon's SLR's and dSLR's doesn't mean much in a real world production context. The fact that you think you see similarities only says something about a few industrial design and usability decisions.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

As explained on countless posts across teh inter web, the company called Pentax still owns, and possess ALL enginerring drawings, blue prints, for EVERY camera produced by Ricoh/Pentax.

And they still have guys who at least were working as engineers when they still made the K1000

With all due respect, Takeo Suzuki (the guy on the video, product planner and design of Pentax project) doesn't agree. He says they ARE WORKING HARD to gather that knownledge for this camera. Drawings, blue print and everything else are not enough, they need the skills of the people that created those cameras. Part of it is lost and not available.
Of those that remains, they are mostly retired or dead, since they industry had no use for them since last decade. Hard to work on this with no company hiring you.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

None of those are fully mechanical, nor are any DSLRs ever made. Fully mechanical means it works without a battery. That is, shutter timing, shutter, focus mechanism, aperture control, etc. is not done using electronics, motors, solenoids, etc. Many, many film cameras were fully mechanical, but not a single digital camera ever has been (or could be, for very obvious reasons).

If you slapped a film transport in the back of a DSLR, you'd have a decidedly not fully mechanical film camera.
The only (serious) fully mechanical, non-large format* cameras in production today, as far as I know, are the Leica M-A, MP, and M6 (and the MP and M6 have a coupled light meter, so one could nitpick whether they're truly fully mechanical).

*Even with large format, where there are quite a few cameras still in production, my understanding is that no one is making large format shutters anymore, with Copal and Compur out of the business. And the shutter in a large format camera is the most mechanically complicated part of the whole thing.

It makes sense that some company may start working on mechanical shutters once current shutter start failing. Most LF shutters are sold on the $80-200 range so it may became an attractive niche anything, since LF photography has become an attractive niche.

 

[Film-Niko]

Faster film wouldn’t so much be expensive to produce, as it would be hard to store.

I think you are much too optimistic in that regard. Even in "film boom times" with a huge market only very, very few higher speed films were available. And even in that times some of these films had to be discontinued because of too low demand, like e.g. Agfachrome RS 1000 or Fujichrome Provia 1600, Kodak Royal Gold 1000, Kodak Ektapress 800.
I remember only one high-speed film with a bit more success: Superia 1600. It was used by professional sport and press-/newspaper photographers. I know my local lab at that time sold a significant volume of it to professionals at that time. But when this customer group went digital, this whole market segment for that film collapsed completely. It has never been a film used in significant numbers by amateurs and enthusiasts.
As it was so difficult even in the film era, it will be almost impossible now with a market having maybe 3-5% of its former volume.

1.2 and 1.4 lenses has been around “forever”, and they haven’t really been improved that much.

The number of 1.2 and 1.4 lenses today is much much higher than 30, 40, 50 years ago. Also a higher number of lens manufacturers is meanwhile offering lenses in that segment.
And may I ask which current, modern 1.2 or 1.4 lenses you have used?
I am asking because I have used meanwhile several of them, and the quality difference to older designs is very obvious: With the new designs much better performance at open aperture and one stop down. And overall better performance acros the frame and at the edges up to f8.

 

[Film-Niko]

Yes.
But the good news is that the needed ROI is certainly possible with the first three mentioned camera types in their "road map":

1. The first camera type they are evaluating with highest priority is a small, compact AF P&S camera. Probably one like the former Pentax Espio mini, Olympus Mju-II (Stylus Epic) or Yashica T4 / T5.
These cameras are extremely popular on the used market, and the used prices now are much higher than the former new prices at the time when the cameras were discontinued.
A camera of that class in good condition has been recently in the 300-400€ range on the used market.

I am convinced that a new camera in that class could be a success if it offers not only being new, and available with a guarantee, but also with 2-4 improvements and "unique selling points". So that you have definitely not only a new, but also a more capable camera than the used cameras.
One of such better features / improved capabilities could for example be a kind of bad weather resistance capability. That the camera can be used in a slight rain, being splash-water proved, and at the beach, resist sand. Pentax has a lot of know-how in that regard, as one of their strengths has been for years to make their cameras wheather resistant.

If such a camera with some improvements would be offered at about 500€, it would be a hit. And considering the possible unit volume I think that price could be realistic.

2. The second camera on their road map is a high-end compact 35mm AF camera. Ricoh had produced exactly that in the past with the famous GR1 / GR1V. The design is already there. So the needed efforts at least in design / construction are manageable. Maybe even some parts of the current Ricoh GR digital can be used (e.g. exposure metering).

3. AF film SLR: From a technical point of view, that would probably be the easiest model to design. Because most of the essential parts are already there and in current production with the Pentax DSLRs.
Pentax has its current 35mm/FF K1-II. And probably that model will be replaced soon by its successor K1-III.
From that model the following main parts could be used for an excellent film SLR:
- the prism
- the whole shutter unit
- the whole mirror box with mirror and mechanics
- the AF system
- the metering system
- the mount.

All that are the parts / systems of a film SLR, which need the most sophisticated design and effort. But all of that will be already there!
The use in two different models - digital and film - will reduce costs significantly.
New design is only needed for the body, film chamber and film transport moter. None of that is difficult in design.

And that camera on a K1-III base would be much, much better than all of the former Pentax AF film SLRs, with many unique selling points in comparison.

That this approach of common design and sharing parts of a DSLR and film SLR is working great was demonstrated by Nikon in the past with the D2x and F6, which have been such "sister models".

4. Full mechanical SLR. That would indeed be more difficult as much less sharing of parts is possible. And that is certainly the reson why Pentax has put that camera at the end of their "priority list", road map.

Best regards,
Henning

That is a very good and thorough assessment.
And very realistic concerning the current market situation.

 

[Agulliver]

@Henning Serger you mentioned a AF P&S with a couple of improvements such as being weather proof. Have you ever seen the Konica Off Road cameras? I have one, possibly intended only for the Japanese market? It looks very unusual but is a 35mm AF P&S in a rugged body designed to be used on construction sites (keeps the dust out and can survive drops) and in all weathers so it is rain/splash proof. What it doesn't have is the classic looks of a 70s or even 90s film camera. Since the idea was that a construction foreman could use it to document a building, the 28mm f3.5 lens is very sharp too. I think there was even one model called the Japanese equivalent of "The Foreman".

However, something likethe konica Off Road with more traditional styling might be the $500 success you're thinking of. I noted that in the Pentax video, Takeo Suzuki talks about a P&S with guarantee and spare parts available.

Since it is so easy, I suggest our machinist friend devotes a few weekends to reverse engineering a mechanical 35mm camera and reports back when he's achieved success in making one that could conceivably be sold for well under $1000.

 

[Helge]

I think you are much too optimistic in that regard. Even in "film boom times" with a huge market only very, very few higher speed films were available. And even in that times some of these films had to be discontinued because of too low demand, like e.g. Agfachrome RS 1000 or Fujichrome Provia 1600, Kodak Royal Gold 1000, Kodak Ektapress 800.
I remember only one high-speed film with a bit more success: Superia 1600. It was used by professional sport and press-/newspaper photographers. I know my local lab at that time sold a significant volume of it to professionals at that time. But when this customer group went digital, this whole market segment for that film collapsed completely. It has never been a film used in significant numbers by amateurs and enthusiasts.
As it was so difficult even in the film era, it will be almost impossible now with a market having maybe 3-5% of its former volume.



The number of 1.2 and 1.4 lenses today is much much higher than 30, 40, 50 years ago. Also a higher number of lens manufacturers is meanwhile offering lenses in that segment.
And may I ask which current, modern 1.2 or 1.4 lenses you have used?
I am asking because I have used meanwhile several of them, and the quality difference to older designs is very obvious: With the new designs much better performance at open aperture and one stop down. And overall better performance acros the frame and at the edges up to f8.

1.4 lenses are super common among vintage glass. And many of them are great.
1.2 and below was never huge sellers. Especially because the lowest stops is only useful in very specific situations. But there is still good ones, that deliver good sharpness at the lowest stop.
Nikon and Minoltas offerings were pretty good IMHO.

Regarding fast film: The main reason for it not selling is because it was grainy AF and people were uninformed about flash (like they are today). Thinking direct on camera flash was THE solution, not knowing about bounce flash, and not knowing about the possibility of using fill flash with even high speed film.

The other reason was the same as it is today. Too slow distribution and/or no insistence on cooling.

The main problem with fast film (>1600) is it fogs in a month or even weeks on the shelf in a warm photo store or at the consumer.
There are several ways to significantly speed up film (3200 and 6400 speeds with 400 speed grain) that was never employed because of the above problems.
Reciprocity failure is what saves most speedy film. But only to a point.

 

[Helge]

@Henning Serger you mentioned a AF P&S with a couple of improvements such as being weather proof. Have you ever seen the Konica Off Road cameras? I have one, possibly intended only for the Japanese market? It looks very unusual but is a 35mm AF P&S in a rugged body designed to be used on construction sites (keeps the dust out and can survive drops) and in all weathers so it is rain/splash proof. What it doesn't have is the classic looks of a 70s or even 90s film camera. Since the idea was that a construction foreman could use it to document a building, the 28mm f3.5 lens is very sharp too. I think there was even one model called the Japanese equivalent of "The Foreman".

However, something likethe konica Off Road with more traditional styling might be the $500 success you're thinking of. I noted that in the Pentax video, Takeo Suzuki talks about a P&S with guarantee and spare parts available.

I don’t think a ruggedized camera was what was on Hennings mind.
It would go directly against the idea of small and light. And it would also cost a lot to do well.
Sealing against moisture is a good idea though, something that was also implemented in the Mju II.

 

[Film-Niko]

1.4 lenses are super common among vintage glass. And many of them are great.
1.2 and below was never huge sellers. Especially because the lowest stops is only useful in very specific situations. But there is still good ones, that deliver good sharpness at the lowest stop.
Nikon and Minoltas offerings were pretty good IMHO.

O.k., your reply indicates that you so far have not used one of the current, modern fast lenses for 35mm .
If I now repeat my results from my usage I've written above, you will probably not believe me......
Hm, suggestion, as you have mentioned older fast Nikon and Minolta lenses:
Take for example a Nikkor 1.4/35 AI-S, 1.4/50 AI-S and 1.4/85 AI-S, or the equivalent Minolta Rokkor lenses and compare their performance with a Sigma 1.4/35 Art, the current Tamron 1.4/35, the Sigma 1.4/50 Art, the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50, the Sigma 1.4/85 Art, the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85.
Or compare the former Nikkor 1.8/105 to the current Nikkor 1.4/105.

Or please have a look here, as an example:
The Nikkor AF-D 1.4/50 has the same optical design as Nikkor 1.4/50 AI-S:

Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4 D (FX) - Review / Test Report

OpticalLimits - Lens reviews and beyond!

www.opticallimits.com

And here in comparison the current Sigma 1.4/50 Art:

Sigma AF 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM | A ('Art') (Nikon FX) - Review / Test Report

Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 DG Review (FX)

www.opticallimits.com

 

[Helge]

O.k., your reply indicates that you so far have not used one of the current, modern fast lenses for 35mm .
If I now repeat my results from my usage I've written above, you will probably not believe me......
Hm, suggestion, as you have mentioned older fast Nikon and Minolta lenses:
Take for example a Nikkor 1.4/35 AI-S, 1.4/50 AI-S and 1.4/85 AI-S, or the equivalent Minolta Rokkor lenses and compare their performance with a Sigma 1.4/35 Art, the current Tamron 1.4/35, the Sigma 1.4/50 Art, the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50, the Sigma 1.4/85 Art, the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85.
Or compare the former Nikkor 1.8/105 to the current Nikkor 1.4/105.

Or please have a look here, as an example:
The Nikkor AF-D 1.4/50 has the same optical design as Nikkor 1.4/50 AI-S:

Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4 D (FX) - Review / Test Report

OpticalLimits - Lens reviews and beyond!

www.opticallimits.com

And here in comparison the current Sigma 1.4/50 Art:

Sigma AF 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM | A ('Art') (Nikon FX) - Review / Test Report

Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 DG Review (FX)

www.opticallimits.com

I don’t really see what your overall point is?
I will only venture to say that modern lenses are overall much larger, heavier, more expensive new adjusted for inflation and has a flatter, duller rendering than old lenses.
Modern lenses are meant for digital where it is assumed that you can pull out contrast to your liking. Except you can’t, not in a good, looking natural way at least.
They are. If not unsuited for film, then less good.

 

[BrianShaw]

With all due respect, Takeo Suzuki (the guy on the video, product planner and design of Pentax project) doesn't agree. He says they ARE WORKING HARD to gather that knownledge for this camera. Drawings, blue print and everything else are not enough, they need the skills of the people that created those cameras. Part of it is lost and not available.
Of those that remains, they are mostly retired or dead, since they industry had no use for them since last decade. Hard to work on this with no company hiring you.

.... and there's more that may need to be revived or recreated: manufacturing capaiblities, factilities, tooling, and equipment. (prpbably mentioned earlier in the htread but I didn't go look for it.)

 

[Film-Niko]

I don’t really see what your overall point is?

Sorry, but you started this discussion with me.
I had only explained that we have now a better situation compared to decades ago with the modern, much improved lenses which offer significantly improved performance at open / wider apertures. Therefore less need for very high speed films (as wanted by the member I replied to).

I will only venture to say that modern lenses are overall much larger, heavier, more expensive new adjusted for inflation

No, they are not generally overall much larger and heavier. Just look at the new lenses from Voigtländer, Leica and Zeiss for thr Leica mount. Or the Sigma 1.4/35 Art, or the 50mm Zeiss Makro-Planar / Milvus, or the Nikon 1.8/28 and 1.8/24 AF-S lenses.

and has a flatter, duller rendering than old lenses.

I cannot confirm that at all from my usage of these lenses. It is just the opposite.

They are. If not unsuited for film, then less good.

I am retiring more and more of my old lenses because the new designs offer me better bokeh, better coating and flare resistance, better color rendition (the Zeiss lenses), better sharpness and contrast, better mechanics and built quality (Sigma Art and especially Zeiss Milvus line), better dust protection / lens sealing.